Skip to content


Mukhi Alias Mukhtiyar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1982WLN(UC)46
AppellantMukhi Alias Mukhtiyar Singh
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....it a fit case in which a lenient view may be taken. the appellant has already suffered the sentence for a period of one month and a half. i am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already he had undergone.;appeal partly allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who..........by, went to the police out post and informed about this talk of the accused and his father to the police. the police went to the house of the appellant and found a pistol lying on that cot. the allegation was that the appellant picked up the pistol on seeing the police. one constable jay gopal caught hold of the appellant. both of them scuffled. the pistol fell down and was taken in possession by the police. the appellant then ran away. this is evident that the pistol was not used. it has also come from the statement of the investigating officer that initially the pistol was lying on the cot where the father and the son were sitting. in such circumstances, when the pistol was not used, there are contradictions about its being loaded at that time, i consider it a fit case in which a.....
Judgment:

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated February 18, 1977 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

2. At the commencement of the arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits rather prays that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the young age of the appellant a lenient view may be taken and he may not be sent behind the bars again after lapse of a period of 7 years since the date of occurrence.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this request.

4. The case relates to the year 1975. The case against the appellant was that he and his father were sitting on a cot on the day of occurrence and they were talking to see soms Karnail Singh. Hariram, a passer by, went to the police out post and informed about this talk of the accused and his father to the police. The police went to the house of the appellant and found a pistol lying on that cot. The allegation was that the appellant picked up the pistol on seeing the police. One constable Jay Gopal caught hold of the appellant. Both of them scuffled. The pistol fell down and was taken in possession by the police. The appellant then ran away. This is evident that the pistol was not used. It has also come from the statement of the investigating officer that initially the pistol was lying on the cot where the father and the son were sitting. In such circumstances, when the pistol was not used, there are contradictions about its being loaded at that time, I consider it a fit case in which a lenient view may be taken. The appellant has already suffered the sentence for a period of one month and a half. I am, therefore, of the opinion tint the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already he had undergone.

5. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period he had undergone. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender to it. His bail bonds stand discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //