Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Imran Hussain vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:41200) on 29 November, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:41200]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 471/2019
Imran Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Yusuf, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Kunjara, Resident Of 5, Churigharon-Ka-Mohalla, Anjuman
Chowk, Kunjarwari, P.s.dhanmandi, Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
29/11/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.03.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Cases), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.17/2019 (18/2013) by which
the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo three
years' R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to undergo two months' additional imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2012 complainant
Dilip Kumar Dholi gave a report at Police Station Ambamata,
stating therein that, on 24.12.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. when he
was standing outside his house, appellant alongwith 5-7 other
boys came and started abusing him and demanded Rs.1 Lac from
[2023:RJ-JD:41200] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-471/2019]
him, which he denied. Thereafter appellant-Imran Kunjda
threatened to kill him, if he fails to fulfill his demand. Thereafter
Imran Kunjda called some other accused, who also came on the
spot and they forcibly entered into the house of the complainant.
Accused Imran with an intention to kill, fired at the complainant,
which barely missed the complainant. However, his niece-Neha
sustained fire-arm injuries. On raising hue and cry, Nikhil,
Yogendra Singh & Rajesh Panwar came to their rescue and the
accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence. On this report,
Police lodged a case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 452,
427, 387, 307, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(X), (2)(V) of SC/ST
(POA) Act and started investigation. After investigation, the
charges of the case were framed against the appellant. He denied
the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and 31 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 15.03.2019 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act only as
mentioned earlier.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
accused appellant is not challenging the finding of conviction but
since the accused appellant has remained in custody and he has
already suffered a sentence of 08 months and 20 days, out of
total sentence of three years, therefore, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid
offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
[2023:RJ-JD:41200] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-471/2019]
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914,
Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4)
CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant 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-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted the custody certificate of the appellant according to
which the appellant has so far undergone a period of 08 months
and 20 days. Thus, undisputedly, the appellant has so far
undergone a period of more than eight months out of the total
three years rigorous imprisonment so also suffered the agony and
trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind
the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3/25
of Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him
while maintaining the fine amount.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section
3/25 of Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
[2023:RJ-JD:41200] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-471/2019]
period already undergone by him, however the amount of fine is
hereby maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant
shall undergo two months' additional imprisonment. Two month's
time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. Appellant
is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
123-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
