Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chitar And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:43276) on 12 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:43276]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 219/2001
1. Chittar S/o Shri Trilok, B/c Bheel, R/o Gegpura, P.S. Rashmi,
District Bhilwara.
2. Sukha S/o Shri Uda, B/c Bheel, R/o Turkia Kala, PS Kapasan,
District Bhilwara.
3. Nanda S/o Shri Narayan, B/c Bheel, R/o Gegpura, PS Rashmi,
District Bhilwara
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SL Sukhwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
12/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.03.2001
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, in
Sessions Case No.8/1997 by which the learned Judge convicted
and sentenced each of the appellants as under :
Offence U/s 326/34 IPC : Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo two
months' S.I.
Offence U/s 325/34 IPC : Two years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one and
half months' S.I.
Offence U/s 324/34 IPC : One year's R.I. and a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one
month's S.I.
Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo fifteen
days' S.I.
Offence U/s 341 IPC : Fifteen days' S.I.
[2023:RJ-JD:43276] (2 of 4) [CRLA-219/2001]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.1996, complainant
Deoji Bheel submitted an oral report to police officials of P.S.
Rashmi to the effect that when he was going towards Gegpura
along with his relatives, near Luharia Bavji, the accused-appellant
came armed with axe and lathis and caused grievous injuries to
the complainant. Due to the injuries, complainant became
unconscious and he was taken to hospital by his relatives. On this
report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellants for
offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the present appellants for offences under Sections 307, 325, 324,
323, 341/34 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed
by the trial court against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as fifteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 15.03.2001 convicted and sentenced
the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
The criminal appeal qua appellants No.1 & 3, Chittar &
Nanda respectively has already been dismissed as abated by this
Court vide order dated 11.12.2023, as both the appellants No.1 &
3 had expired.
[2023:RJ-JD:43276] (3 of 4) [CRLA-219/2001]
So far as appellant No.2 Sukha is concerned, at the
threshold, learned counsel submits that he does not challenge the
finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year
1996 and the accused appellant No.2 has so far suffered a
sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of three years'
R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
appellant No.2 for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellants.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1996 and
the main allegation of causing head injury was upon appellant
No.1 Chhitar, who has already expired and the appellant No.2 has
so far undergone a period of one month incarceration, out of total
sentence of three years' R.I., and has also suffered the mental
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the appellant No.2 has remained
behind the bars for quite some time, it will be just and proper if
the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by the appellant No.2 while maintaining the
amount of fine.
[2023:RJ-JD:43276] (4 of 4) [CRLA-219/2001]
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant No.2's conviction and sentence for offence under
Sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC , the sentence
awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three
months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial
court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo
two months' S.I. The appellant No.2 is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
286-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
