Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Rajasthan vs Ishwar Singh . on 22 January, 2014
¬T
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1635 of 2009
State of Rajasthan
...Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Singh & Ors.
...Respondents
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1639 Of 2009
State of Rajasthan
....Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
.....Respondents
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1638 Of 2009
State of Rajasthan
....Appellant
Versus
Jagveer
.....Respondent
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1637 Of 2009
State of Rajasthan
....Appellant
Versus
Hukmi Chand
.....Respondent
And
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1636 Of 2009
State of Rajasthan
....Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Singh & Ors.
.....Respondents
O R D E R
1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 685, 655, 788, 856 of 2004 and 858 of 2005, by which the High Court has dealt with the cross appeals filed by the accused as well as State against the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 28.5.2004 in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2001 by which the accused had been convicted as under:-
(1) Ishwar Singh (2) Pramendra @ Pappu (3) Vinod Kumar (4) Jai Singh (5) Jagveer (6) Tejpal @ Teja (7) Dharmendra (8) Rajpal (9) Sudhir Kumar (10) Jai Pal Singh (11) Jai Singh S/o Shri Mam Chand (12) Hukmi Chand and (13) Nihal Singh @ Nihala are convicted for offence u/s 148 IPC and each of them are sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment and are also convicted for the offence under section 325 read with section 149, IPC and each of them are sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. All the accused appellants are convicted for offence u/s 323 r/w 149 IPC and each of them are sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- and in default whereof, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. All the accused are convicted for offence u/s 447 and each of them are sentenced to one month’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- and in default whereof, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment.
Accused Nihal Singh @ Nihala, Sudhir, Jaipal Singh, Jai Singh and Jagveer are separately convicted for offence u/s 304-II r/w 149 IPC and each of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.I000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. In the instant case, the incident occurred on 15.3.2000 at 9 AM wherein 13 persons came to the field of complainant Vinod Kumar, attacked and killed Smt. Chand Kaur. Complainant Vinod Kumar (PW.9) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-18) to Shri Phool Chand (PW.13), SHO, PS Buhana to the effect that on the previous day i.e. 14.3.2000, the respondents Ishwar, Pappu and Jagveer came in front of the house of complainant at about 10.00 P.M. and, at that time, they were under the influence of liquor and abused the complainant and his family members. B. On the following day, they came at about 9.00 A.M. at their agricultural field alongwith other accused persons and immediately attacked them and also snatched away gold neck chain and watch of the complainant.
C. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 21/2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 379, 341, 323 and 307 IPC was registered and on account of death of the deceased Smt. Chand Kaur, Section 302 IPC was added subsequently. A cross FIR No. 23 of 2000 was also got registered by respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.1635 of 2009. D. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2001 convicted the respondents as aforesaid.
E. The High Court had interfered in the appeals and the accused who were involved in the crimes were dealt with by passing the following order:
"(i) We partly allow the appeal of appellants Sudhir Kumar and Jaipal Singh and instead of Section 304 part II read with 149 we convict them under section 304 part II read with 34 IPC. Looking to the fact that these appellants have already undergone confinement for a period more than 5 years and 11 months the ends of justice would be met in sentencing them to the period already suffered by them. We thus reduce their sentence from ten years to the period already undergone by them in confinement. We however acquit them of the charges under sections 447, 323/149, 325/149 and 148 IPC. The appellants Sudhir Kumar and Jaipal Singh, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
(ii) We allow the appeals of appellants Ishwar Singh, Pramendra @ Pappu, Vinod Kumar, Jai Singh (iii) S/o Sada Ram, Jagveer, Tejpal @ Teja, Dharmendra, Rajpal, Jai Singh S/o Mam Chand, Hukmi Chand and Nihal Singh @ Nihala and acquit them of the charges under sections 148, 325/149, 323/149 and 447 IPC. We also acquit the appellants Nihal Singh @ Nihala, Jai Singh S/o Mam Chand and Jagveer of the charge under section 304 part II read with 149 IPC. These appellants are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged."
3. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned AAG appearing for the State of Rajasthan and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.
4. The incident occurred almost 14 years ago and the respondents have gone through protracted prosecution. Whether there could be any justification for setting aside the conviction of most of the accused under Sections 304-II r/w 149 IPC and convicting them under Sections 304 r/w 34 IPC looses the significance for the reason that maximum punishment that can be awarded under Section 340-II IPC is to the extent of 10 years and it is not the minimum punishment. The respondents have served 6 years imprisonment till before the judgment was delivered by the High Court on 3.1.2007 i.e. 7 years ago.
5. In view of the above, other minor legal issues involved herein i.e. the accused who stood convicted for minor offences do not require any further consideration.
6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that as the respondents have already served sufficient punishment long ago, no interference is called for at such a belated stage. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. ..........................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ..........................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) ..........................................J. (M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, January 22, 2014 ITEM NO.101-PH COURT NO.4 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1635 OF 2009 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant(s) VERSUS ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for modification of Court’s Order and office report) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1639 of 2009 (With office report) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1638 of 2009 (With office report) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1637 of 2009 (With office report) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1636 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of respondent and with office report) Date: 22/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL For Appellant(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Msw. Nidhi,Adv.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,Sr.Adv.
Mr. K.L. Janjani,Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Gaur,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed, in terms of the signed order.
(O.P. Sharma) (Deepak Mansukhani)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)
-----------------------
6