Skip to content


Ganpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 350 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)636
AppellantGanpat Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....d..........an application under section 427 cr.pc, which was allowed by this court on 14-10-1982 and the sentences awarded to him in this case were made concurrent with the sentences awarded to him in sessions case no. 23/77 by the learned sessions judge, jalore, on 23-11-1977 and in view of this order, the petitioner chhail singh's counsel did not press his revision. his revision petition was, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on 14-10-1982.3. now we are concerned with the remaining six accused petitioners. the learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the convictions of the petitioners before me during the course of arguments of this revision and has only prayed that either the petitioners may be given the benefit of probation or the sentences awarded to them may be reduced as.....
Judgment:

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. This revision has been filed by seven petitioners against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 30-11-1978 by which he affirmed the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal convicting them under Sections 147, 323 and 325 read with 149 IPC. They were sentenced to six months' RI on each of the first two counts and one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 100/- on the third count.

2. One of the petitioners Chhail Singh moved an application under Section 427 Cr.PC, which was allowed by this court on 14-10-1982 and the sentences awarded to him in this case were made concurrent with the sentences awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 23/77 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, on 23-11-1977 and in view of this order, the petitioner Chhail Singh's counsel did not press his revision. His revision petition was, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on 14-10-1982.

3. Now we are concerned with the remaining six accused petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the convictions of the petitioners before me during the course of arguments of this revision and has only prayed that either the petitioners may be given the benefit of probation or the sentences awarded to them may be reduced as according to him, the occurrence is very old and the petitioners have already suffered a prolonged trial.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor & having examined the record, I am of the opinion that this request cannot be said to be unreasonable. In my opinion, it will be proper in the circumstances of this case to give the benefit of probation to the petitioners and award reasonable compensation to the injured.

5. It may be mentioned here that according to the case of the prosecution, the accused persons had belaboured Mehga, his wife Smt. Jasi and his mother Smt. Jama on 24-8-1973 Mehga had received 40 injuries in all over his body. Although these injuries were all simple in nature caused by blunt weapon, the injured according to the medical evidence, remained in agony for more than 20 days as he remained hospitalised and, therefore, the court below rightly found it to be a case of grievous hurt. So far as Smt. Jasi and Smt. Jama are concerned, they have admittedly received only minor simple injuries with blunt weapon. The occurrence as already stated above, had taken place on 24-8-1973 and now more than eleven years have passed, the injuries to Megha have been caused by blunt weapon and each one of them has only a simple injury. It was only the cumulative effect of all the injuries that he had to a suffer for more than 20 days. The petitioners have already served out about 9 days' imprisonment and now at this distance of time, it would not be proper to send them back to jail. That is why I am inclined to grant them probation.

6. I, therefore, partly allow this revision filed on behalf of the petitioners Ganpat Singh, Jor Singh, Jawara, Himata, Habata, and Mod Singh and while maintaining their convictions as aforesaid, set aside the sentences awarded to them. They are not sentenced to any punishment forthwith but shall be released on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal to appear and receive sentences when ever called upon to do so within a period of two years & in the meantime, to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour. I further direct that each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 600/- to the injured Mehga and Rs. 50/-each to Smt. Jasi and Rs. 50/- to Smt. Jama by way of compensation. The petitioners are granted two months' time to pay up the amounts of compensation, and furnish the bonds.


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