Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 179 (RAJ)

Ramgopal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-29

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Both the criminal revision petitions have been preferred before this Court. 2. Revision No. 897/2019 has been preferred by the complainant for awarding lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused respondents 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC by the courts below. 3. Revision No. 845/2019 has been preferred by the accused-petitioners challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2017 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 481/2006, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced each of the present accused-petitioners as under: S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 1. Sec. 341 IPC 1 months SI - - 2. Sec. 323/149 IPC 6 months SI - - 3. Sec. 324 IPC 1 year SI - - 4. Sec. 147 IPC 6 months SI - - 5. Sec. 148 IPC 6 months SI - - 6. Sec. 365/149 IPC 1 year SI Rs. 1000/- 15 days SI 7. Sec. 382 IPC 2 year RI Rs. 1000/- 15 days SI 4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Both the revision petitions are being decided by way of this common judgment as they have arisen out of the same judgments and orders. 6. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2006, complainant Ramgopal gave parcha bayan to the effect that on 16.04.2006 in the morning when he was going towards village Thirajvala, accused-persons came armed with deadly weapons and started beating the complainant. During the scuffle, the complainant received severe injuries. On this parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused persons and started investigation. 7. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the accused-petitioners before the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 341, 323/149, 324, 365/149, 382,147, 148 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 & DW-2. 9. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 & DW-2. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2017 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence as mentioned above. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, both the complainant as well as accused-petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the appellate court and the appellate court vide judgment dated 05.07.2019 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners while giving benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act to co-accused persons namely Karamjeet Kaur & Harinder Kaur and also dismissed the appeal of the while enhancing the fine amount. Hence, these revision petitions on behalf of the complainant and accused-petitioners. 11. During the pendency of the revision petition, accused-petitioner No. 2 Tara Singh had expired and revision qua him was dismissed by this Court on 01.02.2021. Appeal No. 845/2019: 12. In appeal No. 845/2019 preferred by the accused-petitioners, at the threshold counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2006 and accused-petitioners have so far suffered a sentence of about 27 days, out of total sentence of two years' RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners No. 1 & 3 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 14. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 15. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 14. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 15. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2006 and the accused-petitioners No. 1 & 3 have so far undergone a period of 27 days incarceration, out of total sentence of two years' R.I. and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners No. 1 & 3 have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition No. 845/2019 is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners No. 1 & 3's conviction for offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners No. 1 & 3 shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount already deposited by the petitioners shall be adjusted. The petitioners No. 1 & 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Record of the trial court be sent back. Appeal No. 897/2019: 18. In appeal No. 897/2019 preferred by the complainant, counsel submits that the learned courts below while convicting the accused persons for offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC, have awarded a lesser or inadequate sentence. In the incident, the complainant received grievous injuries on the vital part of his body, which is corroborated by the medical report. In the incident, the complainant received grievous injuries on the vital part of his body, which is corroborated by the medical report. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but the learned trial court as well as appellate court have awarded lesser/adequate to the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons ought to have been sentenced with a higher imprisonment. 19. Heard and perused the impugned judgments as well as record. 20. So far as the challenge made for lesser or inadequate sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC is concerned, the learned trial court after considering all the aspect of the matter, has awarded adequate sentence to the accused-persons. Looking to the nature of offence and injuries caused by the accused persons, the sentence as awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court seems to be just and proper which does not call for any interference by this Court. 21. Hence, appeal No. 897/2019 preferred by the complainant is hereby dismissed. 22. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.