Kailash Chandra vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6425 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 173/1986

Kailash Chand S/o Laxminarain
Nathulal S/o Laxminarayan
                  Resident Of Kapren, P.S. Kapren, District Bundi.


                                                                   ----Appellants
                                     Versus
State
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 23.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 29.09.2022

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the

judgment & order dated 29.03.1986 passed by the learned District

& Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No.59/85, whereby

appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence(s)

punishable under Sections 304 Part 2, 324, 326/34 and 324/34

IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants reads

as under:-

1. Kailash Chandra

U/s 304 Part 2 IPC- Five years rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.500/-, in default payment of

fine to undergo two months simple

imprisonment.

                                           (2 of 5)                [CRLA-173/1986]



U/s 324 IPC-            One year rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of

fine to undergo one month simple

imprisonment.

2. Nathulal

U/s 326/34 IPC- Three years rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.500/-, in default payment of

fine to undergo two months simple

imprisonment.

U/s 324/34 IPC- One year rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.250/-, in default payment of

fine to undergo one month simple

imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.06.1985 Madan

Lal S/o Ramnarayana lodged an oral report at 10:30 PM that when

he came from house after meal and drunk tea at the shop of

Cheeta Mali, at that time, Radheshyam Gurjar also came there. He

heard noise and he went on the spot and saw that Nathu Lal Luhar

had caught Radheshyam and Kailash inflicted the injuries on the

neck of Radheshyam by knife. He had taken Radheshyam to the

hospital but he died.

After completion of investigation and necessary

formalities, challan was presented against the accused appellants.

Charges were framed against the appellant Kailash

Chand under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and against the appellant-

Nathulal under Sections 302 read with 34 and 324 read with 34

IPC.

(3 of 5) [CRLA-173/1986]

In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution

examined 11 witnesses. Appellants were examined under Section

313 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they were

innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellants

examined 4 witnesses in their defence.

Learned trial Court vide judgment & order dated

29.03.1986, ordered the conviction and sentence of the

appellants. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

learned trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and

sentence of the accused-appellants. Learned counsel for the

appellants further submits that the learned trial Court had not

read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned

counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Sessions

Judge acted illegally and arbitrary in placing reliance on the

prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants further

submits that there are so many contradictions and improvements

in the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants

also submits that the prosecution witnesses Madanlal, Dwarkalal,

Babulal and Styanarayan are interested witnesses. So, no reliance

could be placed on their evidence. Learned counsel for the

appellants further submits that the appellants had also received

injuries. They had submitted documents and produced the defence

evidence. So, case of the appellants falls in the general exception

of Section 80 IPC because injuries inflicted by the appellants were

in defence. So, appellants be acquitted. Alternatively, learned

counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants are

facing trauma of trial since 1985. They have remained in custody

(4 of 5) [CRLA-173/1986]

for more than two months. So, benefit of probation be given to

the appellants or they be released on already undergone.

Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon

the following judgments:-(1) State Of Punjab Vs. Mohinder

Singh reported in 1993 CRI L.J.3903; (2) Raj Singh Vs.

State Of Haryana reported in (2000) 10 SCC 151;(3) Md.

Monir Alam Vs. State Of Bihar reported in AIR 2010 SC 698

and (4) Prahlad Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in

2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 648.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that

the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and the

appeal is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that the appellants are facing

trauma of trial since 1985. They have remained in custody for

more than two months. It is also admitted position that there is no

criminal antecedents against the appellants. Appellants are the

sole bread earners of their families. So, keeping in view the facts

and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to

reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants to the

period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellants as ordered by

the learned Court below is maintained. However, sentence qua

imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

Appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount

awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of one month.

(5 of 5) [CRLA-173/1986]

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,

appellants Kailash Chand S/o Laxminarain and Nathulal S/o

Laxminarayan are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum

of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a

period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special

Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of

leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall

appear before the Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)