Khinya Ram And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:25223)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5679 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25223]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/1994

1. Khinya Ram S/o Sawai Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Bhagasani, Bilara, Jodhpur

2. Teja Ram S/o Sawai Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Bhagasani, Bilara, Jodhpur

3. Smt. Madi Wd/o Sawai Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Bhagasani, Bilara, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

07/08/2023

1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under

Section 374 (2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment

dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.4/1993, whereby the

have been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the

IPC and while the appellant No.3 Smt. Madi has been released on

probation of 2 years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders

Act upon furnishing a personal bond and a surety of Rs.3000/-

each, the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and appellant No.2 Teja Ram

have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (2 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

alongwith a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 14.02.1992

complainant Ana Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P/14) at the

Police Station Bilara to the effect that marriage of his younger

brother Chimna Ram's daughter Tulchhai was solemnized with

Khinya Ram S/o Sawai Ram, resident of Bhagasani around 4 years

ago. As the parents of the girl were financially weak, no dowry or

ornaments etc. were given in the marriage, due to which, her

matrimonial relatives, namely, mother-in-law Madki, brothers-in-

law Taja Ram, Goda Ram and husband Khinya Ram used to beat

and harass her for dowry. They threw Tulchhai out of matrimonial

home, upon which, she had to live at her parents' house for about

10 months, during which period her father Chimna Ram expired

and when her in-laws came in condolence meeting, she was sent

with them to matrimonial home. Thereafter too, when she came

to Bhawi, she complained regarding harassment for demand of

dowry. On the day of lodging the complaint, they came to know

that Tulchhai had been killed and her body has been dumped in

well. The complainant, Mangla Ram, Lala Ram, Poona Ram, Anna

Ram, Mangi Lal and Parta Ram went to Bhagasani and the body of

Tulchhai was brought out of well. Number of injuries were visible

on her body. The complainant suspected that Madi, Khinya Ram,

Teja Ram and Gordhan Ram might had beaten and killed the

victim and dumped her body in well.

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (3 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.32/1992 for

the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC was

registered and investigation was commenced. After usual

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present

appellants.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants

for the offences under Sections 304-B and in the alternative under

Section 306, 498-A of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the

accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many

as 24 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited.

Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-

appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the

prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. 6 documents

were exhibited from defence side, but no witness was examined.

Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the

appellants in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

17.12.1993, which is under assail before this court in the instant

appeal.

5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for

the appellants does not wish to press the present appeal in

respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial

court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (4 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

only. He submits that the incident is of the year 1992. The

appellant No.3 Madi has already been granted the benefit of

probation. So far as the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the

appellant No.2 Teja Ram are concerned, they were were 28 and 36

years of age respectively at that time of the incident. At present

they are 59 and 67 years of age. They are poor farmers. It was

the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse

remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned

judgment. They have faced the rigor of criminal case for good 31

years. The appellant No.1 has languished in jail for more than 1

month during trial and around 1 month after passing of the

impugned judgment, whereas the appellant No.2 has remained

incarcerated for around 22 days during trial and around 1 month

after passing of the impugned judgment, therefore, the sentence

awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already

undergone.

6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the

appellants have remained behind the bars for some time and that

they are now old aged persons.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material

available on the record.

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (5 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

8. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after

perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference

in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court

does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1992. At

the time of the incident, the accused appellant No.1 and 2 were 28

and 36 years of age respectively and now they have turned 59

and 67 respectively. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is

one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under

the Constitution. The appellants have already suffered the agony

of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 31 years

and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged

period. They have remained incarcerated for some time during

trial and some time after passing of the impugned judgment.

Though they have remained on bail for all these years, but the

sword of going back to jail has always been dangling over their

head. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our

country and since the appellants are living peacefully since last 31

years as no report contrary to that has been received by this

court, thus, it can be assumed that they have been reformed and

no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this

stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon them.

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (6 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the

appellants deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellants also

deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in

this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.

State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and

Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, age of appellants, their criminal antecedents, their

status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship

and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that

ends of justice would be met, if sentences imposed upon them for

each count is reduced to the one already undergone by them.

11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1993

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in

Sessions Case No.4/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence

awarded by the learned trial court to the appellant No.1 Khinya

Ram and the appellant No.2 Teja Ram for the offence under

Section 498-A of the IPC is modified to the extent that the

sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. They are on bail. They

need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

12. The appeal of the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the

appellant No.2 Teja Ram is allowed in part. The appeal of the

appellant No.3 Smt. Madi is dismissed as the judgment of

[2023:RJ-JD:25223] (7 of 7) [CRLA-9/1994]

conviction is maintained and she has already been granted the

benefit of probation by the trial court.

13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

14. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 82-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)