Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hawa Singh And Anr vs State on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 5) [CRLA-332/1991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 332/1991
1. Hava Singh S/o Ramjilal by caste Jat
2. Mohar Singh S/o Sheodutt Ram by caste Jat
Both residents of Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra District Shri
Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manjeet Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
22/07/2022
Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section
374 (2) of IPC against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.1991
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in
Sessions Case No.25/90. Vide judgment dated 30.09.1991, the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
S.No. Section Sentence
1. Hava Singh Section 304 Pt.II r/w Section 3 years R.I. and
34 & Section 323 IPC Fine of Rs.100/-
and in default
further 15 days
R.I.
2. Mohar Singh Section 304 Pt.II 3 years R.I. and
Fine of Rs.100/-
and in default
further 15 days
R.I.
(2 of 5) [CRLA-332/1991]
The present appeal arises out of the incident which happened
on 02.06.1990 at Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
An FIR No.93/89 was registered under Section 341 and 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants. In the incident,
Kewal Ram sustained injuries and during treatment, he
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident and therefore,
Section 302 of IPC was also added. The charge sheet in the case
was filed and the trial court after undertaking the trial
proceedings, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences.
Against the order dated 30.09.1991 passed by the trial court, the
present appeal has been filed by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of
the testimony of PW-3 Nathu Ram, fatal injuries to the deceased
Kewal Ram was inflicted by Mohar Singh and Balveer and the
learned trial court had convicted Balveer for the offence under
Section 323 only, and thus the learned trial court committed an
error while convicting the appellants under Section 304 part II.
He further submits that no injury was caused by Hava Singh to the
deceased as in the statement of PW-3 Nathu Ram, who is an eye
witness, it has come on record that Hava Singh caused injuries to
PW-3 Nathu Ram and therefore, the learned trial court committed
an error while convicting the appellant Hava Singh under 304 part
II vide judgment dated 30.09.1991.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident
occurred on a very trivial issue as the appellants failed to repay
the borrowed amount of Rs.3,000/- to Nathu Ram and for
recovery of the same, certain altercations took place between the
accused and thus, Nathu Ram and the incident happened. Learned
(3 of 5) [CRLA-332/1991]
counsel submits that the incident is more than 32 years old and
the appellants are aged 75 years and 81 years respectively,
therefore, taking into consideration the time lapsed after the
incident and the age of the appellants without making any
interference on the merits/conviction passed by the learned trial
court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be substituted
to the period of sentence already undergone by them. The
appellants Hava Singh and Mohar Singh have already undergone a
sentence of 3 months and 11 months respectively.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and in
alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellants,
which may be directed to be released to the complainant Nathu
Ram, or his legal heirs.
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
(4 of 5) [CRLA-332/1991]
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..."
This Court on conjoint reading of the facts and considering
the manner in which the incident had taken place, on the spur of
the moment without any intention to cause any fatal injury and
the fact that the appellants Hava Singh and Mohar Singh have
already undergone a sentence of 3 months and 11 months
respectively and on reading of the testimony of PW-3 Nathu Ram,
is convinced that the prayer of the learned counsel for the
appellants merits acceptance subject to imposition of a fine of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each upon the appellants.
In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the appellants- Hava Singh under
Section 304 Pt.II r/w Section 34 & Section 323 IPC and
Mohar Singh under Section 304 Pt.II IPC, as above, the
sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already
undergone by them and a fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each.
The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court
within a period of three months from today and the same shall be
released to the complainant Nathu Ram (if he is alive and if not, to
his legal heirs) thereafter. The appellants are on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
(5 of 5) [CRLA-332/1991]
If the accused-appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount
within the stipulated period granted to them by this Court, they
are liable to undergo additional sentence of six months' simple
imprisonment.
All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
136-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
