Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rami Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 13 March, 2013
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sangeet Lodha
1
DB Parole Petition No.1715/2013
28
D.B. Parole Petition No.1715/2013
Rami Devi
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER: 13th March 2013.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA None present for the petitioner.
Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Government Counsel.
<><><> Though nobody is present for the petitioner but, having regard to the circumstances as noticed infra, we are satisfied that this petition is rendered redundant and hence, the same is taken up for disposal by this order.
The petitioner herein is the wife of the convict Hansa Ram S/o Jasa Ram; and has filed this petition seeking release of her husband on parole for a period of 40 days under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 with the submissions, inter alia, that her husband has served about 10 years of imprisonment, has served the sentence with good behaviour, and has availed of 3 paroles in the past without any cause of complaint. It has also been averred that the appeal preferred by the petitioner's husband, being D.B. Cr. Appeal No.244/2005, against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court was pending consideration in this Court.
The learned Government Counsel has, however, pointed out that the said appeal bearing No.244/2005 has been considered and partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment pronounced only yesterday, i.e., 12.03.2013; and therein, the conviction and sentence of the husband of the petitioner have been 2 DB Parole Petition No.1715/2013 altered, resulting in substantial reduction of the maximum period of imprisonment.
Upon these submissions, we have requisitioned the record of D.B. Cr. Appeal No.244/2005 from the office wherefrom it is found that the husband of the petitioner, named Hansa Ram S/o Jasa Ram, was convicted in Sessions Case No.101/1999 by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in the judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 for the offences under Sections 147, 302/149, 323, 323/149 and 341/149 IPC; and was awarded different sentences of imprisonment and fine, including life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, in the judgment and order dated 12.03.2013, as passed in the said appeal, the conviction and sentencing of the husband of the petitioner and some other co-accused have been altered by this Court; and they have been convicted and sentenced as under: -
"Accused Aja Ram, Deva Ram, Hansa Ram and Chuna Ram are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323/149,324/149, 325/149 and 341/149 Indian Penal Code with sentence as under:-
a] Section 147 IPC:- Sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment, b] Section 323/149 IPC:- Six months simple imprisonment; c] Section 324/149 IPC :- Three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in event of default in payment of fine two months simple imprisonment, d] Section 325/149 IPC:- Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in event of default in payment of fine 3 months simple imprisonment and; e] For Section 341/149 IPC:- One month simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in event of default in payment of fine seven days simple imprisonment."
The sentences aforesaid have been ordered to run concurrently and the accused have also been held entitled to the set off in accordance with Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The learned Government Counsel submits that practically 3 DB Parole Petition No.1715/2013 speaking, the husband of the petitioner appears to have served out even the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by him as per the order passed by this Court.
In view of what has been noticed hereinabove, we find no reason to pass any order on the parole plea as put forth by the petitioner in this petition. In the totality of the circumstances and particularly in view of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court on 12.03.2013, now the proceedings in this petition could only be considered redundant and deserve to be terminated as such. However, in the interest of justice, it is made clear that in case of any grievance remaining yet, it shall be permissible for the husband of the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
The petition stands dismissed as redundant subject to the observations foregoing.
(SANGEET LODHA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. cpgoyal//-