Aaidan Singh @ Ariya vs State (2023/Rjjd/014605)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4341 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014605]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 557/2018

Aaidan Singh @ Ariya Son Of Shri Padam Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Mahaveer Nagar, P.s. Kotwali, District Barmer. At Present Lodged In District Jail Barmer

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Daulat Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javeed Gauri, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

10/05/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal, challenge has

been made to the judgment dated 01.05.2018 passed by the

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer in

Sessions Case No.217/2015 (29/2015), whereby the learned trial

court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under

Section 329 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years simple

imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in

payment of fine to further undego two months simple

imprisonment and acquitted the appellant for the offences 341,

323 and 325 of the IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.09.2014,

an FIR No.339/2014 for the offences under Sections 341, 323,

325 and 329 of the IPC came to be lodged at the Police Station

[2023/RJJD/014605] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-557/2018]

Kotwali, Barmer at the instance of the complainant - Manohar Lal,

wherein it was alleged that on that day at about 04.00 p.m., when

he was going towards the market, one Aidan Singh came on the

way towards him and demanded money for purchase of liquour.

On refusal for the same, the appellant started to give beating to

the complainant by wooden stick, during this course, his leg got

fractured. On screaming, one unknown person came there and he

informed the family members of the complainant. Hansraj and

Parasmal, brothers of the complainant and other neihbours also

reached at the place of incident and he was admitted at the Govt.

Hospital, Barmer. On this, case No.339/2014 under Sections 341,

323, 325 and 329 of the IPC was registered against the appellant.

During investigation, the accused-appellant was arrested and after

usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against

him under Sections 341, 323, 325 & 329 of the IPC.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant

and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.

During the course of trial, as many as 09 witnesses were

examined and 14 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an

explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section

313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the

accused appellant and meticulous appreciation of the evidence,

learned trial Judge has convicted the accused for offences under

Section 329 of the IPC and acquitted him from the offences under

Sections 341, 323 & 325 of the IPC vide judgment dated

[2023/RJJD/014605] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-557/2018]

01.05.2018, which is under assail before this court in the instant

appeal.

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

the appellant 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 only. He

submits that the dispute erupted on a very trivial issue and in spur

of the moment, the appellant inflicted injury on the leg of the

complainant Manohar Lal, by a wooden stick, which reflects that

the accused was not intending to kill the complainant, no injury

was caused on any vital part of the body, rather the accused

wanted to hurt him only. The incident is of the year 2014. There

is no criminal antecedent of the present appellant. It was the first

criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been

passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He faced trial

for good 11 years and is languishing in jail for a period more than

one year and 07 months, therefore, the sentence awarded to the

appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions

made on behalf of the appellant but does not refute the fact that it

was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no

criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained

behind the bars for more than one year and 07 months. He has

placed on record the antecedent report and the information

regarding the period undergone by the appellant.

[2023/RJJD/014605] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-557/2018]

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material

available on the record.

7. 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.

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

it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 2014. The

dispute arose on a very trivial issue of raising demand of money

for purchase of liquor, that too in spur of moment and without any

pre-meditation. As per the allegations, he inflicted the injury on

the victim from the wooden stick, which means that he did not

want to kill the complainant. He has faced the rigour of trial for a

long period of 11 years and more. He belongs to a tribal area and

is a weaker person of the society.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the

antecedent report of the appellant procured from the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, as per which, the appellant

is lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur and is serving the sentence.

10. The petitioner was awarded sentence of 05 years' simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 329 of the IPC and he

[2023/RJJD/014605] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-557/2018]

has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 325

of the IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record a

report received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, as

per which, the appellant has already undergone a period of 1

years, 7 months and few days, i.e. almost two years, out of the

maximum sentence of 05 years. No material has been placed on

record to show that his conduct and behaviour within jail was not

good.

11. In this background and in the light of the judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the

society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go

through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce

the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the appellant has

already undergone till date.

12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the

Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer in Sessions

Case No.217/2015 (29/2015) dated 01.05.2018 is affirmed but

the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for

the offence under Section 329 of the IPC is modified to the extent

that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient

and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is in

[2023/RJJD/014605] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-557/2018]

judicial custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not

wanted in any other case.

13. The appeal is allowed in part.

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

15. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 187-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)