Skip to content


Sadulla and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Cr. Appeal No. 507 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)351
AppellantSadulla and ors.
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....contentions into consideration. under the provisions of which, the benefit of probation of good conduct should be extended to the appellants unless there are good reasons to have a departure from these provisions. it is true that the victim received 7 injuries but in itself, it may not be a good ground to refuse of the benefit of probation of good conduct. in my opinion, the reasons advanced by the learned sessions judge are not sufficient to deprive the appellants from the benefit of probation of good conduct. the ends of justice would be evenly balanced if they are released on probation of good conduct and the compensation is awarded to the victim. 3,000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned sessions judge, 1 ratabgarh to appear and receive..........pratabgarti, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of sessions. the learned sessions judge framed charges under sections 324, 325 and 307 read with section 34, ipc against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. in support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and filed some documents. in defence, the accused examined one witness mangilal to prove the age of accused sadulla khan. on the completion of trial, the learned sessions judge found the prosecution case substantially true. the appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. it may be pointed out that the offence under section 307, ipc was taken as not established in view of the injuries sustained by the injured victim.4. i have heard.....
Judgment:

S.S. Byas, J.

1. By his judgment dated November 19, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh convicted and sentenced the three appellants as under:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

S.No. Name of accused Offence u/s Sentence awarded.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Sadullakhao 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine

of Rs. 500/-, in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo three months like

imprisonment,

324, IPC Three months' RI with a fine

of Rs. 300/- in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo 1-1/2 months like

imprisonment.

2. Maidar Khan 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine

of Rs. 500/- in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo three months like

imprisonment.

324/34, IPC Three months' RI with a fine

of Rs. 300/-, in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo 1-1/2 months like

imprisonment.

Daran Khan 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine.

of Rs. 500/- in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo three months like

imprisonment.

324/34, IPC Three months' RI with a final

of Rs. 300/- in default of

payment of fine to further

undergo 1-1/2 months like

imprisonment.

2. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, while these in default of payment of fine consecutively.

3. Briefly recalled the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellants are that they and injured victim PW. 2 Onkarlal are resident of village Ketri P.S. Arnod, District Chittorgaih. There was a dispute between them relating to a taking of water to the field of the victim. At about 2 p.m. on 7-6-77, PW 2 Onkarlal was returning with his son PW 3 Jagdish aged about 12-13 years to his house from the temple of Hanumanji, where both of them had gone to 'Darshan'. In the way, when they reached near the well of Shackerji Maharaj, accused Haiderkhan came with a bicycle from the opposite direction and restrained the father and son from proceeding further. A few second later, the other two appellants Sadullakhan and Darankhan also appeared there. Accused Sadullakhau had a lathi with an iron, shod. The other two appellants had ordinary lathis. Tbey made an assault on injured victim Onkarlal and struck blows to him with their lathis. Accused Sadullakhan struck a blow of his lathi en the left hand of the victim, which resulted in a fracture. Accused Sadullakhan thereafter took out a knife and struck some blows with it to the victim Onkarlal raised crais, hearing which PW. 4 Ramchandra came on the spot seeing him the culprits ran away. A written report Ex. P/7 of the occurrence was lodged at about 9.30 a.m. on 8-6-77 at police station, Arnod by PW. 4 Ramchandra. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The injuries of the victim were examined on 7-6-77 by PW. 1 Dr. G.N. Rai, then the medical officer, General Hospital, Pratabgarh, He found 17 injuries on his person. On X-ray examination, one of these injuries being the fracture of upper third of left under was found grievous The rest were simple. One of the injuries was caused by a sharp weapon while the rest were caused by simple blunt objects. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan under Sections 307, 325 and 324, IPC against the appellants in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratabgarti, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness Mangilal to prove the age of accused Sadulla Khan. On the completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case substantially true. The appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. It may be pointed out that the offence under Section 307, IPC was taken as not established in view of the injuries sustained by the injured victim.

4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 1 have also gone through the case file carefully.

5. Keeping in view, the direct testimony of the injured victim PW 2 Onkarlal and the evidence of eye-witnesses PW 3 Jagdish and PW 4 Ram Chandra, the learned Counsel did not challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offence they were convicted. His only submission relates to the punishment awarded. It was argued that none of the appellants was more than 22 or 23 years in age at the time of the conviction. Accuses Darankhan according to the learned Sessions Judge was of the age between 20-21 years. Accused Haiderkhan was of the age between 22-23 years and accused Sadula-khan was of the age of 23-24 years. It was argued that no previous conviction stands at their discredit. The fracture accused to the injured victim was not of any vital part of the body. It was only the left ulna, which got factored. As such, the benefit of probation should be extended to the appellants. Reliance in support of his contention was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Shyaji and Ors. 1980 Cr. LJ (Raj) 70.

6. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the commission of offence was pre-meditated. The victim was severally beaten and sustained as many as 17 injuries. As such, it would not be improper to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the appellants I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.

7. A perusal of the case file shows that none of the appellants was above 24 years in age, even according to estimate made by the learned Sessions Judge. No previous conviction stands at their credit. The case is, therefore, covered by Sub-section (I) of Section 360, Cr. PC. under the provisions of which, the benefit of probation of good conduct should be extended to the appellants unless there are good reasons to have a departure from these provisions. When the accused is not dealt with under Section 360(1), Cr. PC, the court is required to record special reasons in its judgment for not having done so. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment simply stated that the injuries were seventeen in number and assault was premeditated. It is true that the victim received 7 injuries but in itself, it may not be a good ground to refuse of the benefit of probation of good conduct. So also, Section 360(1), Cr. PC. can not be confined only to the offences, which are not premeditated. In my opinion, the reasons advanced by the learned Sessions Judge are not sufficient to deprive the appellants from the benefit of probation of good conduct. They are all young persons and it will not be advisable to send them to jail where there are likely to come in contact with hardened criminals. The ends of justice would be evenly balanced if they are released on probation of good conduct and the compensation is awarded to the victim.

8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of accused Sadullakhan, Haiderkhan and Darankhan for the various offences are maintained but the sentences awarded to them are set aside. Instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, it is hereby directed that they will be released on each of them entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, 1 ratabgarh to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Each accused will pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the injured victim Onkarlal(PW 2).

9. The appellants are allowed one month's time to furnish the bonds and deposit the compensation. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.


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