Mahaveer Prasad And Ors vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 4133 Raj/2

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
               BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/1998

1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Phulchand jain, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

2. Sujaram     S/o Shri Manglaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

3. Sunderam S/o Shri Chunnaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

4. Bhagirath S/o Shri Chunnaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

5. Babulal S/o Shri Heeraram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S. Sambher

  Lake, District jaipur

6. Devaram S/p Shri Narainram Meena, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

7. Baluram S/o Shri Jodharam Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S. Sambher

  Lake, District Jaipur

8. Bodhuram     S/o Shri Gullaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

9. Jivenram S/o Shri Gullaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S. Sambher

  Lake, District jaipur

10. Chandaram S/o Shri Nandaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

11. Choturam    S/o Shri Mewaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

12. Lacharam S/o Shri Chunnaram Jat, R/s Kajipura, P.S.

  Sambher Lake, District Jaipur
                                                             ----Appellant


                 (Downloaded on 01/09/2021 at 09:57:09 PM)
                                           (2 of 4)                   [CRLA-389/1998]


                                     Versus
State
                                                                   ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 532/1999

1. Babu Lal S/o Heera Ram, R/s Kajipura, P.S. Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

2. Chotu Ram S/o Meva Ram, R/s Kajipura, P.S. Sambher Lake, District Jaipur

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar For Complainant(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

27/08/2021

1. Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by

judgment dated 02.05.1998 passed by Additional District and

Session Judge, Samber Lake, District Jaipur, whereby the

appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 147 IPC one

year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of

deposition of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment, under

Section 323 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of

Rs.500 and in default of deposition of fine, fifteen days rigorous

imprisonment, under Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC two years

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of

deposition of fine, two months rigorous imprisonment & under

Section 459 IPC with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine

(3 of 4) [CRLA-389/1998]

of Rs.3,000/- and in default of deposition of fine, three months

rigorous imprisonment.

2. From the perusal of the order dated 09.03.2017, it is

revealed that Sunderam, Devaram and Baluram have also expired.

The proceedings of Sunderam, Devaram and Baluram were abated

vide the order dated 09.03.2017.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that appellant-

Bhagirath has expired. Considering the same appeal also abated

qua the Bhagirath also.

4. It is also contended by counsel for the appellants that the

incident took place in the year 1996, appellants were convicted

vide judgment and sentence dated 02.05.1998, appellants for

offence under Sections 147, 323, 325 & 459 IPC and the

maximum sentence imposed is three years. It is further contended

that the dispute between the parties have remained pending for a

period of 25 years and now parties have amicably settled their

disputes and the complainant has no objection if the sentence

passed against the appellants is set aside and if the appellants are

let off the sentence as already undergone. They have no objection

to the same.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeals.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Taking note of the fact that the 25 years old dispute has

been settled between the parties, the maximum sentence imposed

by the Court below was three years and the appellants have

remained in custody for some time after lodging of the FIR, hence,

I deem it proper to partly allow the appeal and while upholding

(4 of 4) [CRLA-389/1998]

the judgment of conviction, the sentence imposed by the Court

below is reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Accordingly, these appeals stands partly allowed.

9. Bail bonds submitted by appellants stand cancelled.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /44 & 46

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)