Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajaram And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 29 April, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 221/2013 RAJARAM & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29.04.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. Shailesh Kumar Panwar, for the accused-petitioners. Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State at admission stage.
2. This revision petition under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases(Prevention of Atrocity) Jhalawar(Raj.)(Additional Charge) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2011(61/2010), whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pirawa District Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') against the accused-petitioners in Criminal Case No. 257/2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced each of the accused-petitioners as under:
(i) Under Section 341 IPC to undergo one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one days simple imprisonment;
(ii) Under Section 323 IPC to undergo one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 days simple imprisonment;
(iii) Under Section 324 IPC to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three days simple imprisonment;
(iv) Under Section 325 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five days simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The concise facts of the case are that on 20.10.2004, complainants Tanwar Singh with his son Devi Singh submitted a report at Police Station Raipur stating therein that in that night at about 9.00 PM, near the place of Balaji, accused-petitioners Rajaram and Laxmi Narayan gave beatings to him with sticks and when his son, Devi Singh tried to intervene, they gave beatings to his son also. On the basis of the said report Case No. 140/04 was registered and investigation commenced in the matter. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 IPC before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioners denied the allegation of commission of aforesaid offences against them, pleaded innocence and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution supported its case with the aid of 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. In defence the accused-petitioners wanted to examine witnesses but they did not examine any witness, therefore, defence evidence was closed. Statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they refused the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statements of accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as stated hereinabove. Against the said judgment and order, accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, which was transferred to the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Being aggrieved with the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, the accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners firstly argued the case on merits and contended that both the Courts below erred in relying upon and appreciating the prosecution evidence for convicting the accused-petitioners as the material available on record does not prove the offences alleged against the accused-petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The version of the prosecution is not believable. Both the courts below have also failed to appreciate the fact that the incident happened in the dark night, thus, identification of the petitioners is also doubtful and complainant falsely named the accused-petitioners due to some rivalry of the way and doctor also opined that injuries sustained to the injured can be received in an accident. There is no independent witness of the case and the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon. Both the Courts have grossly erred in not relying upon the defence version of the petitioners. There is no material on record for previous conviction of the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners were entitled for probation, but the learned courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter also. The accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case, while they have no role in the commission of alleged offences. It is further contended that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court both have committed grave error in convicting the accused-petitioners for alleged offences. Impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures, faulty presumption and misreading of evidence.
8. Finally learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2004 and, therefore, the accused-petitioners do not want to press this revision petition on merits. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further contended that looking to the age of the accused-petitioners; their family status; the fact that they are not habitual offenders and not previously convicted; further the incident pertains to year 2004, i.e. 9 years ago, lenient view may be taken in the present matter by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the accused-petitioners may either be granted benefit of probation or in the alternative, the punishment/sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them by the courts below, being too harsh, may be considered sympathetically and may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further submitted that both the accused-petitioners are behind the bars from 28.02.2013 till today. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Roopa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) R.C.C. 1039; Ghasi Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2012(2) CJ(Cri.)(Raj.)914; Hira Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012(3) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1290; Jagji Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012(3) CJ(Cri.)(Raj.) 1072; Gokul & Others Vs. State of Raj., 2010(4)WLC(Raj.)674, Bhupendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008(6)WLC(Raj.)135 and Kalyan & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009(2)RCC721, wherein accused-persons were facing trial for so many years and with a view to serve the ends of justice, the sentence imposed upon the accused-persons was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and submitted that considering the fact that the complainants-injured were inflicted injuries by the accused-petitioners brutally, therefore, sentence awarded to them by the courts below may be enhanced by this Court.
11. From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and the findings recorded by both the Courts below, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is right in not pressing this revision petition on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is concerned, there is no doubt that the incident in the present case took place in the year 2004, i.e. near about 9 years ago. The complainants-injured suffered injuries also, but, during pendency of this revision petition, the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for near about 2 months. The punitive theory of punishment and deterrent theory of punishment have to left their force considering the fact that the incident in the present matter took place in the year 2004. Jurists have formulated some principles regarding punishments and these recent trends have been recognized and approved by Honble Supreme Court also for ordinary crimes, although some special crimes have been excluded.
12. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the present case the incident occurred as back as in the year 2004, i.e. near about 9 years ago. The accused-petitioners had been facing trial for quite long time; they have remained in jail for near about 2 months also. The purpose of the Court is not merely to punish the accused-persons, but also to ensure that harmony be maintained with the society, therefore, it will not be proper for the accused-persons to remain in custody for a long period. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, I want to give one more chance to reform the accused-petitioners. Thus, considering the fact that further incarceration of the accused-petitioners would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners by the Trial Court and maintained by the Appellate Court to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them and to award compensation to the injured persons.
13. In the result, I maintain the judgments and orders of conviction passed by the Courts below against the accused-petitioners but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the accused-petitioners have already undergone imprisonment of near about 2 months, as aforesaid mentioned, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the accused-petitioners to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them and to award compensation to the injured persons .
14. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioners namely (1) Rajaram S/o. Laxmi Narayan; (2) Laxmi Narayan S/o. Onkar Lal under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 IPC is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is modified/reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The each accused-petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousands Only) before the Trial Court forthwith towards compensation and out of the total amount of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 8,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant Tanwar Singh, who has sustained simple injuries and one grievous injury and Rs. 2,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant Devi Singh, who has sustained simple injuries. In default of payment of aforesaid amount, each/concerned accused-petitioner shall undergo one months simple imprisonment. The accused-petitioners are in jail. Upon compliance of aforesaid directions, the Trial Court is directed to release the accused-petitioners forthwith in this case, in case they are not required in any other case. Registry is directed to send the record of both the Courts below along with copy of this judgment for compliance forthwith. Application for suspension of sentence(I.A. No. 69/2013) also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.