Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 676 (RAJ)

Mota Ram S/o Balu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-25

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal under proviso Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.56/2012, whereby the appellant Hetram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC, appellant Baluram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326/149, 325, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC and appellants Mota Ram, Gopal Ram, Ramchandra, Khamma Ram, Ramswaroop and Sita Ram have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC and sentenced in the following manner :- Offence for which convicted Sentence of imprisonment Fine Sentence in case of default in payment of fine Section 148 of the IPC 1 year's R.I. Rs.2000/- 1 month's S.I Section 326/149 of the IPC or Section 326 of the IPC 3 years' R.I. Rs.5000/- 6 months' S.I Section 325/149 of the IPC or 325 of the IPC 2 years' R.I. Rs.3000/- 3 months' S.I Section 323/149 of the IPC 2 months' R.I. Rs.1000/- 15 days' S.I Section 341 of the IPC 1 month's R.I. Rs.1000/- 15 days' S.I 2. Facts in brief, relevant for disposal of the appeal are that on 11.07.2010 at 06.00 p.m. complainant Lekhram, who was admitted in Emergency Ward of PBM Hospital, Bikaner, gave a Parcha Bayan to the effect that 3-4 days prior to the recording of his statement, he was working in his field. In the evening at about 6 o'clock Khamma Ram, Ramchandra, Hetram came to his field and assaulted him. A case in this regard was got registered at the Police Station Panchu. In the morning of the day of recording the statement, when the complainant's sons Ramswaroop and Babulal did not return from another filed, he went to look for them. He reached to Jait Talai, where Ramchandra, Hetram, Ramswaroop, Seeta Ram, Mohan Ram, Balu Ram, Khamma Ram, Mota Ram and Gopal Ram were hiding with arms. They launched an attack on him. Hetram gave an axe blow on his right leg and Balu Ram gave him lathi blow on the hand. Hearing the commotion, Babulal and Ramswarop reached at the spot, upon which the accused left him and started assaulting his sons with lathis, Sariyas and Axe. They launched an attack on him. Hetram gave an axe blow on his right leg and Balu Ram gave him lathi blow on the hand. Hearing the commotion, Babulal and Ramswarop reached at the spot, upon which the accused left him and started assaulting his sons with lathis, Sariyas and Axe. When the family members reached there hearing the noise, the accused ran away from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.57/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323 and 341 of the IPC and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the competent court. After a full-fledged trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C seeking compounding of offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that that accused/appellants and the complainants have entered into a compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between them. It is further submitted that the parties belong to the same village and are living peacefully since long. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail. Thus, it was prayed that the appellants may be acquitted from the charges on the basis of the compromise. 4. However, looking to facts and circumstances of the case, this court showed non-inclination for acquittal of the appellants based upon the compromise, upon which learned counsel for the appellants submits that he will not assail conviction of the appellants and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentences awarded by the trial court on the basis of the compromise. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2010. The appellants have no prior criminal antecedents. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned judgment. They have already suffered ordeal of protracted trial since the year 2010, i.e. for a period of around 14 years. They have remained in custody for some time during trial and after passing of the impugned judgment. The offences under Sections 148, 325 and 323 of the IPC are compoundable offences. They have already suffered ordeal of protracted trial since the year 2010, i.e. for a period of around 14 years. They have remained in custody for some time during trial and after passing of the impugned judgment. The offences under Sections 148, 325 and 323 of the IPC are compoundable offences. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking in to account the compromise, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentences may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that no interference is called for either in the judgment of conviction or in the order of sentence and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on record. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellants is not pressing the appeal on merits, but in the interest of justice, I have again gone through the niceties of the case and do not find any error, either factual or legal, warranting interference of this court in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. The prosecution has produced clinching and cogent evidence, including the testimonies of eye-witnesses, injury reports and the site plan etc., to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. For these reasons, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. Now coming to the quantum of sentences awarded by the learned trial court, in the case at hand, the compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is worth placing reliance. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under :- "10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213 , Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 711 , this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period already undergone." 11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction." 9. Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC)], in which it is held as under :- "28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. 29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the accused and the victim and it will always be better to restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand." 10. It is well settled that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The appellants and the complainant are living in the same village and are residing happily since last so many years. As per the compromise deed, the parties are now having cordial terms. The victims have been duly compensated for the injuries and now the parties have decided to bury the hatchet for once and all. The appellants and the complainant are living in the same village and are residing happily since last so many years. As per the compromise deed, the parties are now having cordial terms. The victims have been duly compensated for the injuries and now the parties have decided to bury the hatchet for once and all. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellants are living peacefully since last 14 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon him. This court is also conscious of the fact that sending the appellants back into custody may rejuvenate the old strife. 11. In this background and in view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into consideration the facts that the incident pertains to the year 2010, the appellants have already suffered ordeal of protracted trial for 14 years, they have no previous criminal antecedents and they have remained incarcerated for some period during trial and after passing of the judgment impugned, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the judgment of conviction, ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the appellants for each count, is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants for the respective offences is modified to the extent that for each count, the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 13. The appeal is allowed in part. All pending applications are disposed of.