Skip to content


Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision Nos. 405 and 413 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1977WLN544
AppellantRam and ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredB.P. Andre v. Supdt. Central Jail and Hardeo
Excerpt:
penal code - sections 325/34 or 149 incident 8 years old substantial imprisonment already undergone--accused already on bail--held, it is not desirable to send accused to jail--sentence of imprisonment reduced to already under gone.;the petitioners have served out a substantial portion of the sentence of imprisonment and they had been on bail from this court for the last about 4 years the occurrence took place on 13.1.1969. it will not be desirable in the circumstances of the case to send the petitioners to jail again.;the sentences of imprisonment for the offence under section 325 read with section 34 or section 149 i.p.c. are reduced to that already undergone.;revision partly accepted - .....judge, merta, passed in criminal appeal no. 56 of 1971 affirming the conviction recorded by the sessions judge, merta, vide judgment dated 29-5-71 in sessions case no. 5 of 1970. both these revisions are, therefore, disposed of together by this single judgment. in revision no. 405 of 1973 the petitioners gigaram and magharam and in revision no. 413 of 1973 the petitioners are surajaram and ramuram sons of kanaram. all the four petitioners were convicted for the offence under section 147 i.p.c. and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 51/ each, in default to undergo 15 days, rigorous imprisonment. they were also convicted for the offence under section 325 read with section 31 or section 149 i.p.c. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one.....
Judgment:

R.L. Gupta, J.

1. Both these revision petitions arise out of the judgment dated 1.9.73 of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, passed in criminal appeal No. 56 of 1971 affirming the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Merta, vide judgment dated 29-5-71 in Sessions case No. 5 of 1970. Both these revisions are, therefore, disposed of together by this single judgment. In revision No. 405 of 1973 the petitioners Gigaram and Magharam and in revision No. 413 of 1973 the petitioners are Surajaram and Ramuram sons of Kanaram. All the four petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 51/ each, in default to undergo 15 days, rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 31 or Section 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Ramuram and Surajaram were also convicted for the offence under Section 323 [PC and each of them was sentenced to pay a tine of Rs. 75/- in default to undergo 21 days, rigorous imprisonment. Ramu Ram was also convicted for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 101/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months. Gigaram was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. It may be mentioned that Ramuram was fined Rs. 500/-for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge but this amount of fire was reduced to Rs. 101/- by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.

2. It was alleged by the prosecution that one Mst. Lachuri was previous married to Nanuram brother of Gigaram but later on she went in Nata with Narainram PW 12 some 16 years back. It was said that on this ground the parties were on inimical terms. On the day of the occurrence i.e. 13/11/69 at about 7 A.M. Narainram PW12 one of injured, came to the house of his brother-in-law Mohan and Narainram. Mohan and Mst. Kanuri (Mohan's mother) were talking to each when the accused party duly armed with lathis and knives came there in order to murder Narainram and in pursuance there of they belaboured Narainram and when Mohan and Kanuri tried to rescue him they were also beaten. Incised wounds on the nose, lips and ear on the person of Narain were inflicted with knife by Gigaram As many as 35 injuries were caused to Narain while Mst. Kanuri received two injuries and Mohan received one. After the trial the petitioners were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge for the offences mentioned above and their convictions and sentences were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, with the modification that the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 379 I..P.C. passed against Ramuram was reduced to that of Rs. 101/-.

3. The only point that has been pressed on behalf of the petitioners is regarding sentence. It has been submitted that the occurrence is of 13/11/69 and it is for the last about 8 years that the petitioners are undergoing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings. The petitioners Surajaram, Ramuram and Maghararn have remained in jail or custody for about 8 months and 9 days while they have been sentenced to the maximum amount of one year for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 or Section 149 I.P.C. Thus They have undergone substantial part of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them. The maximum amount of punishment to Gigaram for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is two years rigorous imprisonment while he has undergone imprisonment or had remained in custody for about 19.1/2 months. Thus he has also undergone a substantial portion of the imprisonment awarded to him. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.P. Andre v. Supdt. Central Jail and Hardeo v. State of Punjab : 1975CriLJ182 , the petitioners are entitled to get a set off or adjustment of pre conviction detention period under Section 428 Cr. P.C. 1973. It has, therefore, been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it will not be just and proper to send the petitioners to jail again after such a long period. Mr. Mathur has submitted that the petitioners and some other persons caused as many as 35 injuries-simple and grievous, by blunt and sharp weapons on the person of Narain. Gigaram has thus caused disfiguration and therefore he does not deserve any leniency in the matter. Mr. Bhansali has however submitted that only three injuries are alleged to have been caused by Gigaram on the person of Narain and according to the statement of the doctor the disfiguration, if any, is so minor in nature that it is not visible from a distance. But it is only when one looks into the face of Narain closely then this defect may be noticed. Thus looking to the nature of the injury the sentence already served out by the petitioner Gigaram meets the ends of justice.

4. I have given my due consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the parties. As pointed above, the petitioners have served out a substantial portion of the sentence of imprisonment and they had been on bail from this Court for the last about 4 years. The occurrence took place on 13-1-69. It will not be desirable in the circumstances of the case to send the petitioners to jail again.

5. The revisions are partly accepted, the convictions of the petitioners for the various offences are maintained. It may be said that as the substantive sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently by the Assistant Sessions Judge, the petitioners already completed their sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C.. The sentences of imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 or Section 149 I.P.C. are reduced to that already undergone but instead their sentence of fine is increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 350/- each on this count. The sentence of fine against Gigaram for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is also increased from Rs. 300/-to Rs. 500/-. In default of the payment of fine they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the Sessions Judge. The sentence of fine on Ramuram and Surjaram for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. & sentence of fine on Ramuram for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and the sentence of fine on the petitioner for the offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code as passed by the leaned Sessions Judge are maintained. Out of the fine if realised, an amount of Rs. 1500/- will be paid to the injured Narain. Two month time is requested to deposit the amount of fine which is granted: As there is no court of assistant Sessions Judge Merta, now, the amount of fine be deposited in the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta, and out of this amount of fine the leaned Sessions, Judge, would pay the amount of compensation to the injured Narain as ordered by this Court.


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