Rajasthan High Court
Ram Kishan vs State on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 134/1987
Ram Kishan S/o Jagannath, R/o Malpura, PS Malpura, Distt.
Tonk. Presently in Distt. Jail Tonk.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Fahad Hasan
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 dt.
13.3.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk (for short 'the trial
court') in Sessions Case No.13/1986 whereby accused appellant
has been convicted and sentenced for the offence 304 (II) IPC as
under:-
Section Sentence
304 (II) IPC To undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment
Prosecution story, in brief, is that one Hanuman Prasad S/o
Ladu Dhobi deposed in his parcha bayan recorded by the Karan
Singh, SHO, Malpura on 15.12.1985 at 9.50 pm in Malpura
Hospital that in their caste on 15th of every month lottery is drawn.
On the same day, when lottery was been drawn in the house of
(2 of 4) [CRLA-134/1987]
Gopi. One lottery of Rs.1850/- was drawn in the name of
Gajanand S/o Bhura Dhobi and another lottery of Rs.1800/- was
drawn in the name of Ram Kishan S/o Jagannath. Gajanand was
asked by Suraj to get deducted Rs.10/- from the amount so
received towards donation but Gajanand refused whereupon
Suraj, Gopi, Ramniwas, and Ram Kishan had an altercation with
Gajanand and they gave blows with hand and fist to Gajanand.
When Hanuman intervened then Ram Kishan gave push to
Gajanand and he fell down. Thereafter, Gajanand had gone away
to his house. After some time, Hanuman was called by Sitaram
and he told that Gajanand's condition has became critical,
whereupon he was taken to the hospital where he died.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,
charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant.
Charges were framed against the accused appellant Ram
Kishan for the offence u/s 304 Part-I IPC and against rest of the
accused charges were framed for the offence u/s 304 Part-I read
with Section 34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed
for trial.
In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined
9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Appellant was examined
u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and prayed that he was innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined five witnesses
in his defence.
The trial court vide judgment dt. 13.3.1987 convicted and
sentenced the accused appellant for the offence u/s 304 Part-II
IPC to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1
(3 of 4) [CRLA-134/1987]
month simple imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal has been
filed by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
trial court had erred in convicting and sentencing of the accused-
appellant. 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 1985. Learned
counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has
remained in custody for more than one and half month. He has no
other criminal antecedents. So, in the interest of justice, sentence
of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
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 1985. Appellant has remained in custody for
more than one and half month. 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.
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 them.
(4 of 4) [CRLA-134/1987]
Appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine within a
period of one month before the trial court.
Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment dt.
13.3.1987 passed by the trial court stands modified as indicated
above.
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,
appellant Ram Kishan S/o Jagannath 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
Brijesh 146.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
