Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chun Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44344) on 18 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:44344]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1116/2020
1. Chun Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 67 Years,
2. Balwant Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged 57 Years,
3. Devi Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
4. Rewant Singh S/o Shri Chun Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
5. Moti Singh S/o Chun Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
6. Laxman Singh S/o Shri Chun Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
All B/c By Caste Rawna Rajput, R/o Vishala, District
Barmer.
7. Jabar Singh S/o Ridmal Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By
Caste Rana Rajput, R/o Jhinjhinyali, District Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Nimba Ram S/o Shri Chutra Ram, By Caste Bheel, R/o
Sura Jagir, Police Station Barmer Rural, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bagmalani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/12/2023
Application (1/2023) for recalling the order dated
20.11.2023 issuing arrest warrant against the appellant No.1 Chun
Singh is allowed for reasons stated therein.
The appellant No.1 is present in Court today. He has been
identified by his counsel and his attendance is marked in court file.
The matter is being decided today itself.
[2023:RJ-JD:44344] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1116/2020]
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 03.12.2020 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer, in
Sessions Case No.85/2013 by which the learned Judge convicted
and sentenced the appellants as under :
Offence U/s 148 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Offence U/s 341 IPC : One month's S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days' S.I.
Offence U/s 323/149 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen
days' S.I.
Offence U/s 324/149 IPC : One year's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
fifteen days' S.I.
Offence U/s 3(1)(X) of SC/AT Act : Two years' S.I. and a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
fifteen days' S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a
written report before Police Station Barmer Rural to the effect that
on 21.10.2013 at about 11:00 AM, the accused persons came
armed with sword, iron rod and various other deadly weapons and
abused his father using caste oriented language and thereafter
caused grievous injuries. On raising hue and cry, people came to
rescue his father. On this report, Police registered a case against
the accused appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
341, 323, 307 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and
started investigation.
[2023:RJ-JD:44344] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1116/2020]
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the present appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed the
charges against the appellants offences under Sections 147, 148,
341, 323 or 323/149, 307 or 307/149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 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. Two witnesses were
examined on defence side.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.12.2020 convicted and sentenced
the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2013 and the accused
appellants have so far suffered a sentence of three days, out of total
sentence of two years' S.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence
awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:44344] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1116/2020]
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 2013 and,
the appellants have so far undergone a period of three days
incarceration, out of total sentence of two years' S.I., and have also
suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellants have remained behind the bars for a period of three
days, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial
court for offence under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellants.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellants' conviction and sentence for offence under Sections
148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Act, the sentence awarded to them 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, failing which the appellants shall
undergo fifteen days' S.I. The appellants are on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.
Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
C/1-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
