Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sare Mal vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:8977) on 21 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8977]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20/2007
Saremal S/o Jetha Ji, B/c Purohit, Aged about 60 years, R/o
Annkhol, PS Jhab, District Jalore.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Pradeep Shah for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 21/02/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 20.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jalore Camp Bhinmal, in Session Case No.52/2005 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
S.No. Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine
1. 326 IPC 3 years' RI Rs.5,000/- 6 months' RI
2. 324 IPC 6 months' RI - -
3. 323 IPC 1 month's RI - -
4. 447 IPC 1 month's RI - -
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2005, complainant Dajaram submitted a written report at Police Station Jhab to the effect that on 21.07.2005, an unknown person inflicted injuries to his son Jabara. On this report, Police registered a case and started (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:49:08 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8977] (2 of 3) [CRLA-20/2007] investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the present appellant.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 447, 307, 326, 324, 323 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2005 and presently the accused appellant is aged about 78 years and he has so far suffered a sentence of about ten days, out of total sentence of three years' R.I. and compromise has also been arrived at between the parties, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. However, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:49:09 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8977] (3 of 3) [CRLA-20/2007] neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2005 and presently the appellant is aged about 78 years and he has so far undergone a period of ten days incarceration, out of total sentence of three years' R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that compromise has arrived at between the parties and the appellant, who is an old aged person of 78 years, has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 447 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 447 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is also waived since compromise has arrived at between the parties. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 234-MS/-
(Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:49:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)