Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sare Mal vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:8977) on 21 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8977]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20/2007
Saremal S/o Jetha Ji, B/c Purohit, Aged about 60 years, R/o
Annkhol, PS Jhab, District Jalore.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Pradeep Shah for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/02/2024
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 20.12.2006 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jalore Camp Bhinmal, in
Session Case No.52/2005 by which the learned Judge convicted
and sentenced the appellant as under :
S.No. Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 326 IPC 3 years' RI Rs.5,000/- 6 months' RI
2. 324 IPC 6 months' RI - -
3. 323 IPC 1 month's RI - -
4. 447 IPC 1 month's RI - -
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2005, complainant
Dajaram submitted a written report at Police Station Jhab to the
effect that on 21.07.2005, an unknown person inflicted injuries to
his son Jabara. On this report, Police registered a case and started
[2024:RJ-JD:8977] (2 of 3) [CRLA-20/2007]
investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the present
appellant.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under
Sections 447, 307, 326, 324, 323 IPC were framed by the trial
court against the accused-appellant, 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 appellant was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.12.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2005 and presently the
accused appellant is aged about 78 years and he has so far
suffered a sentence of about ten days, out of total sentence of three
years' R.I. and compromise has also been arrived at between the
parties, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of
compromise arrived at between the parties. However, the learned
Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is
[2024:RJ-JD:8977] (3 of 3) [CRLA-20/2007]
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.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2005 and
presently the appellant is aged about 78 years and he has so far
undergone a period of ten days incarceration, out of total sentence of
three years' R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and
trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the facts that compromise has arrived at
between the parties and the appellant, who is an old aged person
of 78 years, has remained behind the bars for a considerable time,
it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 447 IPC is reduced to
the period already undergone by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 326, 324,
323, 447 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the said offences is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of
fine is also waived since compromise has arrived at between the
parties. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds are discharged.
Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
234-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
