Rajasthan High Court
Amar Chand vs State on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 229/1985
Amar Chand Son of Girraj, Resident of Village Kanjoli, Police
Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur
---Accused-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 13.02.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 17.02.2023
Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment &
order dated 26.04.1985 passed by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in
Session Case No.121/1984, whereby appellant has been acquitted
for the offence under Sections 148, 323 IPC and instead of 302
IPC, he had been convicted for the offence under Section
304 Part-I IPC and sentenced as under:-
U/s 304 Part-I IPC Eight years' rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
fine to undergo two months' rigorous
imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that Hari Nath son of Gopi,
resident of Kanjoli, Police Station Roopwas (Bharatpur) lodged a
written report at Police Station Roopwas on 08.07.1984 at 3:00
(2 of 4) [CRLA-229/1985]
PM, wherein it was mentioned that on 06.07.1984 he got his
Khasra No.280 measured by the Tehsildar, Roopwas. After
measuring the field, he alongwith others came to their residence.
In the evening at about 8-9 PM, Hari Singh called him and asked
not to plough the field. He abused the complainant Hari Nath.
Bhagwan Das and Dhandhu also reached there. Hari Singh, Amar
Chand, Manohar, Girraj, Chhitaria armed with Lathies and farsas
came there and attacked on them. Amar Chand gave farsa blow in
the head of Dhandhu due to which he became unconscious and fell
down and succumbed to injury. In the opinion of the doctor, the
death was caused due to the result of head injury. FIR was lodged
for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant and co-accused persons.
After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against
the appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 148, 149 & 323
IPC and against the co-accused persons for the offence under
Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147 & 323 IPC.
Accused persons denied the charges levelled against them
and claimed for trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined its
witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Appellant was
examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
He prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in
this case.
Learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons for the
alleged offences. The accused appellant had also been acquitted
(3 of 4) [CRLA-229/1985]
for the offence under Sections 148, 323 IPC, but instead of
Section 302 IPC, the appellant-Amar Chand had been convicted
for the offence under Sections 304 part-I IPC and sentenced as
indicated above. Hence, this present appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial
court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I
IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he
does not want to challenge the conviction part of the judgment
passed by the trial Court. Leaned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the appellant is facing trial since 1984. Learned
counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has
remained in custody for more than eleven months. He has no
criminal antecedents. He is old and infirm person. So, in the
interest of justice, sentence of the appellant be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that the appellant is facing trauma
of trial since 1984. Appellant has remained in custody for more
than eleven months. It is also admitted position that there is no
criminal antecedents against the appellant. So, keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and
expedient to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period
already undergone by him.
(4 of 4) [CRLA-229/1985]
Accordingly, conviction of the appellant as ordered by the
learned Court below is maintained. However, substantive sentence
of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
Appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine within a
period of one month before the trial court failing which it shall
take necessary steps to serve out the sentence awarded to the
accused in default of payment of fine.
Appeal stands partly allowed and the judgment dated
22.04.1985 passed by the trial Court stands modified as indicated
above.
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant-
Amar Chand Son of Girraj is 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 the stipulation that in the event of
Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant
of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before the Supreme Court.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /145
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
