Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ankit vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14857) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14857]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 655/2024
Ankit S/o Pappu @ Ram Prasad, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Dhaneriya Police Station Ras, District Pali. (Lodged At Central Jail
Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assited
by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
This criminal appeal on behalf of accused-appellant
challenges the judgment and order dated 02.04.2024 passed by
the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District
Pali, in Sessions Case No. 08/2021, whereby he has been
convicted for offence under Sections 498A, 324, 326 and Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC) and sentenced
as under :-
Offence Punishment
Section 498A IPC Three years simple imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo six month imprisonment.
Section 324 IPC Three years simple imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo six month imprisonment.
Section 326 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine
of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, to undergo one year simple
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:14857] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-655/2024]
Section 307 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine,
to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of case are that the complainant filed a FIR No.
236/2020 before P.S. Ras, Pali, Rajasthan for the offences u/s
498-A, 323, 307/34 IPC stating therein that her cousin sister got
married to the accused appellant on 29.06.2020 and soon after
marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and turned out of
matrimonial home. On 26.11.2020, upon compromise, she was
again sent to her matrimonial home, however, again she was
subjected to cruelty and caused life threatening injuries by the
accused appellant. After investigation, police filed chargesheet for
offence under Sections 498-A, 324, 326 and 307 IPC. The case
was committed to the court of learned Additional Session Judge,
Jaitaran where charges were framed. The accused appellant
denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The
statements of the accused appellant was recorded pursuant to
Section 313 Cr.P.C., and certain documents were exhibited in
defence. Learned trial court, on completion of the trial, convicted
and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated
above.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has argued that
the trial court has seriously erred in convicting the accused-
appellant against the weight of evidence on record. It is argued
that the appellant and the victim had solemnized love marriage.
However, his wife wanted to live separately with him and in order
to pressurize the appellant, the victim has exaggerated the story.
[2025:RJ-JD:14857] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-655/2024]
It is further argued that there are major contradictions in the
statement of witnesses who are interested witnesses. It is argued
that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had
caused injuries with an intention to kill the victim. It is submitted
that the incident in the present case has taken place in a sudden
fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel between the
accused-appellant and victim. Therefore, the conviction and
sentence recorded against the appellant for offence under Section
307 & 326 IPC may be set aside. In the alternative, it is prayed
that the trial court has awarded a sentence of ten years and seven
years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 307 & 326
IPC respectively, which is excessive and harsh. The appellant has
already remained in jail for more than four years as on today,
therefore, this court, while upholding the conviction for offence
under Section 307 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded for offence
under Section 307 & 326 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal
and submitted that there is no reason why injured eyewitness
should be disbelieved. Her testimony has been corroborated from
the medical evidence. The argument that the injuries received by
victim were self inflicted injuries, cannot be accepted.
I have learned counsel for the parties and carefully
considered the evidence on record.
Despite the defence set up by the accused that the injuries
sustained by the victim were self inflicted, having carefully
scrutinized the statement of witnesses and medical evidence, I am
not inclined to accept such a plea, rather there is no reason to
[2025:RJ-JD:14857] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-655/2024]
disbelieve the testimony of injured eyewitness, namely, Jaishree.
As per statement of doctor PW/16 Dr. Vikas Kumar Meena, the
injured had sustained four injuries. Injuries no.1, 2 & 3 were
found to be simple in nature and injury no.3 was found to be
grievous and dangerous to life. Therefore, the offence under
Section 307 & 326 IPC is clearly made out against the appellant
and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence
under Section 307 & 326 IPC. However, taking into consideration
that only one injury was found to be grievous and rest of the
injuries were simple in nature, this Court is of the opinion that the
sentence of ten years and seven years rigorous imprisonment for
offence under Section 307 & 326 IPC respectively is excessive. In
the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet, if the
accused appellant is sentenced to five years rigorous
imprisonment instead of ten years for offence under Section 307
IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years
for offence under Section 326 IPC.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the accused-appellant for offence under Section 307 & 326 IPC is
hereby maintained, however, the sentence for offence under
Section 307 IPC is hereby reduced to five years rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo six month simple imprisonment.
Similarly, for offence under Section 326 IPC, the sentence is
reduced to rigorous imprisonment of five years instead of seven
years, alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Conviction and
sentence awarded for offence under Sections 498A, 324 IPC are
[2025:RJ-JD:14857] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-655/2024]
not interfered with. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial court is accordingly modified.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
225-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
