Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deputy Singh @ Daljit Singh & Ors vs State on 16 February, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 393 / 2014
1. Deputy Singh @ Daljit Singh S/o Mukhtiyar Singh, by caste
Majabi Sikh, resident of 18 S.D. Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District
Sri Ganganagar
2. Jogendra Singh S/o S/o Mukhtiyar Singh, by caste Majabi
Sikh, resident of 21 S.D. Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri
Ganganagar
3. Balveer Singh S/o Darshan Singh, by caste Majabi Sikh,
resident of 23-A, Police Station Anoopgarh, at present
resident of Shivpuri Police Station, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri
Ganganagar
(At present lodged in District Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor for the
State.
_________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Judgment 16/02/2017 Accused-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 26 th of April 2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the appellants are indicted for the offences under Sections 450, 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and handed down concurrent sentences as under:
(2 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] U/s. 450 IPC Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional six months' imprisonment U/s. 326/34 IPC Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional six months' imprisonment U/s. 324/34 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional three months' imprisonment U/s. 323/34 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment.
Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 12 th of October 2005, Parcha Bayan of injured Sandeep Kumar (Complainant) was recorded by ASI Jagidish Hudda in Surgical Ward of Govt. Hospital, Sri Vijaynagar wherein he inter-alia stated that his younger brother Daleep and Tarachand Meghwal on their way to field were intercepted/stopped by appellant No.1 Deputy Singh and his brother-in-law. Later on when complainant Sandeep Kumar and his father reached at the spot they were also threatened by them. It was further stated in Parcha Bayan that on the same day in the evening at 7 PM when complainant, his elder brother Vinod, father Dhanna Ram, Daleep, Tarachand Meghwal, Subhash and Budhram were sitting in Dhani, accused appellant Deputy Singh, Rajendra, brother-in-law of Deputy Singh and his other brother Jogendra Singh (Appellant No.2) with two other persons came there well armed with weapons. Alleging in the Parcha Bayan, complainant has clarified that appellant No.1 Deputy Singh was carrying sword in his hand and Rajendra was having Gandasi while Jogendra Singh was carrying a Kappa. For (3 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] the brother of Deputy Singh, it is stated that he was carrying lathi and two others were also carrying Gandasi and lathi. Attributing culpability of all the accused persons, Parcha Bayan also reveals that after reaching at the spot, Deputy Singh attacked with sword on the head of Subhash and resultantly Subhash fell down and became unconscious and thereafter Jogendra Singh hit Budhram using Kappa, who also fell down. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) further unfurls that when resistence was offered, the complainant, Mahendra and Tarachand were also beaten by lathis and Gandasis and when his father screamed, Ramsingh immediately rushed to the spot and thereupon Deputy Singh and all his accomplishes fled away.
The police, registered a case against accused persons and after completing investigation filed chargheet against accused- appellants and one Rajendra Singh for offence under Sections 307, 450, 323 & 326 read with Section 34 IPC before the concerned Magistrate, who later on committed the case to learned trial Court.
Learned trial Court framed charges against appellants under Section 307/34, 326/34, 323/34 and 450 IPC and on denial of the charges, proceeded with the trial of the case. During trial, prosecution, in order to prove charges against accused-appellants, examined nine witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and final arguments were heard by learned trial Court.
(4 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and other material available on record, held the accused-appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and passed aforementioned sentences against them.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants, at the outset, has abandoned challenge to their conviction for the aforesaid offences, however, it is submitted by learned counsel that looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case appellants may be given some reprieve in the quantum of sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel would contend that appellant No.1 Deputy Singh and appellant No.3 Balveer Singh are in custody since their arrest i.e. 26 th of April 2014 and therefore have served substantial part of sentence awarded to them. It is further submitted by learned counsel that Jogendra Singh was arrested on 16th of November 2012 and released on bail on 4th of May 2015, therefore, he too has served sentence for more than two and half years. Laying emphasis on the sentence already undergone by the accused-appellants, it is submitted by the learned counsel that serving substantial sentence by the appellants is a mitigating factor for reducing the sentence awarded to them and furthermore looking to the date of incident, which is more than a decade old, their prayer for reducing the sentence awarded requires favourable consideration.
(5 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of injuries suffered by the victims, fine awarded by the learned trial Court be enhanced reasonably and paid as compensation to them under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment in conjunction with the entire record of the case.
Indisputably, learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences, therefore, it is not desirable for this Court to scrutinize the evidence meticulously. However, the plea sought to be raised by the learned counsel to reduce the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court requires judicial scrutiny in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is noteworthy that the incident occurred as early as on 12 th of October 2005 and since then more than a decade has elapsed and during this entire period appellants have suffered the agony of criminal trial. This vital fact can very well be taken into account by the Court while appreciating the argument of the appellants for reducing the sentences handed down to them. That apart, it is also not in dispute that appellant No.1 Deputy Singh and appellant No.3 Balveer Singh have undergone sentence of more than two and half years and appellant No.2 Jogendra Singh has also remained in custody for almost same duration, is a mitigating circumstance so (6 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] as to persuade this Court for reducing the sentence awarded to the extent they have undergone the sentence.
At this stage, I feel persuaded to examine the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor for enhancing the amount of fine and for paying the same as compensation to victims by resorting to Section 357 Cr.P.C. There remains no quarrel that the aggression shown by the appellants and other accused persons has resulted in grievious and simple injuries to the victims and therefore they are entitled for compensation.
In the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the amount of fine awarded by the learned trial Court is liable to be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- i.e. making it double.
In view of foregoing discussion, the instant appeal is allowed in part and the conviction of the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences is upheld and sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each against the appellants is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each and total amount is quantified as Rs.30,000/- which shall be payable to the injured victims under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
(7 of 7) [CRLA-393/2014] The appellants are directed to deposit the total amount of fine inclusive of enhanced amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before learned trial Court. In case the aforesaid amount is deposited within the stipulated period, then appellant No.1 Deputy Singh @ Daljit Singh & appellant No.3 Balveer Singh shall be set at liberty in accordance with law, if not required in any other case, and the bail bonds of Appellant No.2 Jogendra Singh, who is on bail, shall stand cancelled and discharged.
On deposition of the said amount, the learned trial Court is directed to disburse the same to the victims in equal denomination i.e. @ Rs.10,000/-. It is made clear that in case total amount of compensation as determined hereinabove is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated period then the instant appeal shall be treated as dismissed facilitating revival of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. arora/