Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 347 (RAJ)

Rajesh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-23

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal appeal is filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity, "appellant") against the judgment dated 19.12.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoiti Affected Area and Additional Sessions Judge, Karoli (for brevity, "learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No.10/1988 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under: Section 304 part 2 IPC: Seven years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine; in default whereof, three months imprisonment. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that an FIR dated 11.08.1986 (Ex.P-2) came to be registered at Police Station Karoli under Sections 452, 307 and 323 IPC on a written report dated 11.08.1986 (Ex. P1) lodged by Shri Gaya Prasad (PW1)-brother of the deceased Brij Mohan @ Binda. It was stated in the report that the appellant alongwith co-accused persons entered the residential house of his brother Durga Prasad and inflicted lathi blows on the head of Brij Mohan @ Binda resulting into grievous injuries. During the course of investigation, Brij Mohan @ Binda expired whereupon, Section 302 IPC was added. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 453 and 323 IPC. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant and against remaining three co-accused persons, it was framed under Section 302IPC read with Section34 IPC. After trial, while, the co-accused persons were acquitted from the charge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although, there is only one injury on the head of deceased with blunt weapon which has been found to be fatal and which, as per the FIR and the statement of some of the eye witnesses, is attributed at least to two persons including the appellant; but, without pressing the appeal on its merits, he would pray that while maintaining the conviction, the appellant, who has been facing trauma of this criminal case for last about thirty eight years, is aged about sixty six years and has served the sentence for a period of about six months, the sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nagia v. State of Rajasthan: RLW 1990(1) 99. 4. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nagia v. State of Rajasthan: RLW 1990(1) 99. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. As per the FIR lodged by brother of the deceased Gaya Prasad (PW1)-an eye witness, four persons including the appellant and co-accused Brahma inflicted lathi blows on the head of the deceased. Similar allegations have been reiterated by other eye witnesses namely Smt. Rumali (PW2)-wife of the deceased and Durga Prasad (PW3)-brother of the deceased. However, as per the post mortem report of the body of deceased (Ex. P14), he has received only one injury on his head with blunt weapon. The incident is dated 10.08.1986 and the appellant is facing trauma of pendency of this criminal appeal for last about thirty eight years. As per the arrest memo dated 26.12.1986 (Ex. P6), the appellant was aged about twenty six years at that time which makes him aged about sixty five years as on date. The appellant has remained in custody pre-conviction for a period of four months and twenty days and post conviction, for a month and seven days; thus, he has remained in custody for a total period of about six months. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 , held as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 8. A Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of Nagia (supra) wherein, he was convicted inter alia under Section 302 IPC and was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment, while altering his conviction to Section 304II IPC, reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, as under: "6. Now we take up the question what sentence should be awarded to the appellants. The incident, in the present case, took place in the year 1977, and now we are in the year 1990, and more than 13 years have elapsed. All the four accused remained behind the bars for 153 days and it will not be proper to send these accused persons in jail after a lapse of 13 years. We, therefore, think it proper that instead of sending accused Narsingha, Lumbia and Mahadeva to jail again, we reduce the substantive sentence imposed on them to that of already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellants Narsingha, Lumbia and Mahadeva will further to Undergo six months R.I. Accused appellant Nagia is convicted under section 304 Part II IPC and sentence to undergo the imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo 2 years' RI. 7. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part. Accused Nagia is acquitted of the offence under section 302 IPC and is convicted under section 304 part II IPC and is awarded a sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo 2 years' RI. 7. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part. Accused Nagia is acquitted of the offence under section 302 IPC and is convicted under section 304 part II IPC and is awarded a sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of accused Narsingha, Lumbia and Mahadeva is maintained, but their substantive sentence is reduced to that of already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed on each of the accused and in default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused-appellants are allowed three months' time to deposit the fine. Fine if so deposited may be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Barju." 9. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to partly allow this criminal appeal. 10. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, for depositing the fine, if not already deposited, he is granted two months' time failing which he shall be liable to serve the default sentence.