Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 86 (RAJ)

Rukemani v. State

2025-01-13

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing of this appeal, the validity of the impugned judgment dated 07.08.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemkathana (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.01/1989 has been questioned by which the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one and a half years additional rigorous imprisonment. They have been also convicted under Section 148 IPC and were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the appellants under Section 307 IPC wherein allegations were levelled against them that they have beaten the injured Chhoti Devi on 07.05.1988. During the course of investigation, the injured Chhoti Devi expired on 16.05.1988, hence, offences under Section 307 IPC were converted to Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/149 & 148 IPC and thereafter, charges were framed against all the appellants for the above offences. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 17 documents. Thereafter, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied their participation in the alleged incident and in defence, statements of four witnesses namely; Chhaju Ram (DW-1), Kanhiaya Lal (DW- 2), Shanker Lal (DW-3) and Kartar (DW-4) were recorded and 14 documents were exhibited. 5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 07.08.1991, acquitted all the appellants of the charges under Section 302/149 IPC and found them guilty for the offences under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, all the appellants have approached this Court by way of filing this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing their conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, all the appellants have approached this Court by way of filing this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing their conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. 7. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant Nos.1 & 2 passed away and a report in this regard was submitted by the concerned Police Station, after verification of the said fact. Hence, under these circumstances, the instant appeal stands abated qua the deceased-appellants Nos.1 & 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the marriage of the deceased appellant No.1 was solemnised with the deceased appellant No.2 and out from their wedlock, three children were born i.e. appellant Nos.3 to 5. Learned counsel submits that the deceased-Chhoti Devi was married to the brother of the appellant No.2-Bhinwa Ram but after his death she came in Nata with the deceased appellant No.1 and from this wedlock two children Krishan and Ram Singh were begotten. Learned counsel submits that owing to a property dispute, the instant FIR came to be registered against all the appellants that they have committed murder of the deceased Chhoti Devi. 9. Learned counsel submits that in fact no such incident took place and the appellants have been falsely booked in this case simply on the basis of the evidence of family members of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their conduct appears to be highly unnatural as they did not make any effort to save the deceased from attack of the assailants. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the above so-called eye witnesses was so unnatural that the same cannot be believed and the learned Trial Judge has seriously erred in relying upon their testimony. Learned counsel submits that the cause of death of the deceased, as per the postmortem report, was pneumonia and the same has occurred due to medical negligence of the treating Doctors and not due to the injuries, alleged to have been inflicted by the appellants. 10. Learned counsel submits that the cause of death of the deceased, as per the postmortem report, was pneumonia and the same has occurred due to medical negligence of the treating Doctors and not due to the injuries, alleged to have been inflicted by the appellants. 10. After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the conviction of the accused- appellants on merits and submitted that looking to the incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.05.1988 and the deceased has died on 16.05.1988 and there is no close proximity of the death of the deceased with the alleged injuries, the benefit of probation be granted to the accused appellants. Learned counsel submits that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of probation, then they be released on the sentence already undergone by them, as the matter pertains to the year 1988 and the appellants have suffered agony of protracted trial. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the offences committed by the appellants have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and they have been rightly found guilty for the offences, as stated above. Learned counsel submits that looking to the gravity of the matter and allegations levelled against the appellants, neither the accused appellants deserve benefit of probation nor their sentence is required to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Lastly he argued that interference of this Court is not warranted and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be rejected. 12. After carefully examining the matter on its merits, this Court finds no perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, as after discussion of the evidence available on the record and after appreciating the evidence available on the record, the judgment in question has been passed. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of the eye witnesses at the scene of occurrence is improbable as they did not make any effort to save the deceased. The presence of the eye witnesses was quite natural as they are relatives of the deceased and other family members, residing in the same house and in close vicinity. The presence of the eye witnesses was quite natural as they are relatives of the deceased and other family members, residing in the same house and in close vicinity. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge has passed a reasoned and cogent judgment. 13. The appellants have not pressed the findings of the judgment of conviction on its merits, after arguing the matter for sometime but they have confined their arguments to the sentence part only and they have prayed to release the appellants by reducing their sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by them. Hence under such circumstances, this Court is not discussing/dealing with the evidence of the prosecution and defence to come to the conclusion as to whether the appellants are liable to be acquitted or the impugned judgment is liable to be upheld. 14. Now, this Court deals with the alternative argument raised by the counsel for the appellants with regard to the release of the appellants on the sentence already undergone by them. 15. The appellant Nos.3 & 5 have undergone the imprisonment from 12.05.1988 to 04.07.1988 during the course of investigation and trial and remained in jail, and after their conviction with effect from 07.08.1991 to 09.09.1991. The appellant No.4 has undergone the imprisonment with effect from 23.11.1988 to 19.12.1988, during the course of investigation and trial and after his conviction with effect from 07.08.1991 to 09.09.1991. Hence, the appellants, in total, have remained in custody around three months. The incident has taken place about three and a half decades back and the appellants had to pass through the long ordeal for about 37 years both mentally and financially. 16. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 (2) SCC 648 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “……...There is no straight jacket 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. 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, the nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 17. 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, the nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 17. Similarly in the case of Haripada Das Versus State of West Bengal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 , the Apex Court has held, looking to the facts, that the accused had already undergone detention for some time and the case is pending for pretty long period of time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and looking to the fact that their sentence was suspended decades back, the ends of justice would meet, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 18. In the case of Mohinder Jolly Versus State of Punjab reported in 1979 (3) SCC 30 , the Hon’ble Apex Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and looking to his custody period of one year and one month, he was released on the basis of sentence already undergone by him with the following observations in Para 12 which read as under:- “12. Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellant's wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years' further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part-I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part-II.” 19. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Laldeen and Others reported in (1997) SCC ONLINE Raj 715, after following the judgments of Gurucharan Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Others reported in 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 680 and Rameshwar Lal Versus State of Rajasthan reported in 1988 WLN (UC) 32 and looking to the sentence served by the accused of ten and a half months, the same was considered as sufficient for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, and also taking this fact into consideration that occurrence took place 19 years back, the sentence of the accused was reduced to the period already undergone by him, by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- on each accused. 20. Looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 1991 and the accused persons were having no motive or any intention to cause death of the deceased-Chhoti Devi and looking to the fact that the deceased has died after 9-10 days of the incident i.e. on 16.05.1988 due to pneumonia, hence, there was no close proximity of her death with the injuries sustained by her on 07.05.1988 and looking to the fact that the appellants have remained in custody during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction, for a considerable period of time, while maintaining their conviction, their sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. The amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on each of the appellant Nos.3 to 5 in addition to the fine imposed by the Trial Court. In default of payment of enhanced fine, the defaulting appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on each of the appellant Nos.3 to 5 in addition to the fine imposed by the Trial Court. In default of payment of enhanced fine, the defaulting appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a period of two months before the Trial Court. After receiving the amount of fine, the same shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation. If the appellants fail to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court would proceed against the appellants for sending them in custody to serve the sentence for committing default in payment of fine amount. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to that extent. Needless to observe, the appeal stands abated qua the deceased-appellant Nos.1 & 2, as observed in forgoing para. 22. In view of the provisions of Section 483 BNSS, the accused- appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave to Appeal being submitted against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. Office is directed to return the record to the Trial Court for compliance of the judgment passed by this Court.