Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sampat And Ors vs State on 20 July, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 441/1989

Sampat And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadich for
Mr. Mridul Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, A.G.A.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 11/07/2022
Pronounced on 20/07/2022

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that hits appeal of
appellants may kindly be accepted and allowed and the appellants
ma very kindly be ordered to acquitted or in the alternative may be
given benefit u/s. 360 Cr.P.C. or probation."

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1987 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 1989.

3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Nohar in

Sessions Case No. 63/87 State Vs. Pratap & Ors. whereby the

appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 were convicted under Section

307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and each of them

(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:58:14 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLA-441/1989]

were sentenced to 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in

default of payment of which they were to further undergo 1 month

R.I. and 1 year R.I., respectively, whereas appellant no. 3 was

convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. for 1 year R.I.

4. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

appellants no. 2 and 3, have died during the pendency of the

appeal. The appeal, with respect to appellants no. 2 and 3

therefore, stands abated, whereas the appeal, with respect to

appellant no. 1 survives.

5. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the appellant are that on 18.06.1987 at about 09:00

a.m. P.W. 10 Kashiram, S.H.O. Police Station Bhadra registered a

report in his roznamcha wherein he recorded the statement of

P.W. 3 Chhoturam, at Ex. P/1, and in that statement P.W. 3 stated

that construction work was being undertaken to construct his

house in his village, for which his brothers, Ratanlal and

Veersingh, were supplying bricks. And that, Pratap, Sampat,

Sheoram, Hari Ram and another unidentified person came to his

field, contesting his right to the land upon which he had begun the

construction. And that, Hari Singh was armed with a pistol, Pratap

and Sampat were armed with guns, and the remaining persons

were carrying Barchi. And that, Hari Singh fired upon the

complainant, whose thigh was injured and fell to the ground. And

that, additional firing was made by the accused, which hit the

complainant's parents, and resulted into the death of his father.

The accused persons then fled the scene, and this entire incidnet

was seen by Veer Singh, Ratanlal, Man Singh and Sheo Karan.

(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:58:14 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLA-441/1989]

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a

criminal case, bearing No. 83/87 was lodged wherein the appellant

herein were charged for the offences under the Sections 147, 148,

149, 447, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act. And that,

the investigating officer, P.W. 10 Kashiram commenced investigtion

and prepared the fard baramadgi, the site plan, and received the

post mortem of the deceased victim Ranjit and the injury report of

Chotu Ram and Rampyari. After which, the same was produced

before the Judicial Magistrate, Nohar and the accused persons

were arrested and the recovery of weapons from them was made.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the

accused were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections

147.148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms

Act. And that, upon trial the learned Court below acquitted Pratap

and Mangiram for all the charges against them while convicting

the appellants no. 1 and 2 Sampat and Hari Singh for the offences

under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Sections 27 Arms Act and convicted

appellant no. 3 Sheo Ram for Section 323 I.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

injuries caused to Ram Pyari and Choturam were not caused to the

vital parts of either of their bodies, and the injuries were simple in

nature. And that, therefore, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is

not made out against the appellant no. 1, Sampat.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the

pellets so recovered from the incident in question, were not sent

for ballistic testing, and no such report either was generated by

the concerned police authorities.

(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:58:14 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLA-441/1989]

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this

Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 15.01.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Bail Petition No. 457/1989.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the

appellant has undergone about 2 months in custody out of the

total sentence so awarded to him by the learned Courts below.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited

submission that without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant

may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone

by him.

13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the

learned Court below has rightly proceeded in convicting the

appellant, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of

the case and the evidences placed on record before it.

14. This Court observes that the root of the dispute between the

parties herein, was owing to partition of a parcel of land between

them. And that, appellant no. 1 was convicted under Sections 307

I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, intention as under

Section 307 I.P.C. cannot merely be inferred from the nature of

the injuries so inflicted upon the victims, but from the acts of the

accused persons.

15. This Court however observes that the learned Court below

has not taken into due consideration the fact that no blood was

found on the spot where the incident in question occurred.

(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:58:14 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLA-441/1989]

16. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,

Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2

SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC

678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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. 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..."

18. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,

and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the

present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining

the appellant's conviction under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and

Section 27 of the Arms Act as above, the sentence awarded to him

is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant

is on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court

on vide order dated 15.01.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition

No. 457/1989, whereby the sentenced awarded to him was

(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:58:14 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLA-441/1989]

suspended. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand

discharged.