High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
RATAN SINGH & ORS. v STATE - CRLR Case No. 359 of 1993  RD-RJ 143 (30 January 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Ratan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Raj.
S.B.CR.REVISION PET. NO. 359/1993 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED 19.11.93 PASSED BY ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, HINDAUN CITY,
DISTT. SAWAIMADHOPUR IN CR.
APPEAL NO. 12/93.
Date of Order : January 30th, 2006.
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. N.A. Naqvi with Mr.Manoj Avasthi, for petitioners.
Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT: 1. This revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment dated 19.11.1993 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun city, Distt.
Sawaimadhpur by which the said court partly allowed the criminal appeal no. 12/93 while upholding the conviction of petitioner Ratan Singh under Sec. 326 IPC. The learned
Appellate Court awarded the punishmentof 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 400/-, and while upholding the conviction of other petitioners Kishan singh S/o Cheta and Charan Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh under Sec.325 IPC, awarded the punishment of 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 400/- each. 2. According to the prosecution, Shivram Singh, Head
Constable recorded the Parcha Bayan of Jagdish Prasad
(PW-1) on 16.3.1982 stating therein that he is a teacher in village Sherpur and resident of village Kathvadijat and he daily goes to village Sherpur for teaching. On the day of alleged incident, he was going to School along with his brother Motilal and one Sualal. At about 10.15
AM, in the way, Sualal and complainant along with his brother started towards village Sherpur. In the meantime, accused petitioners Ratan Singh, Kishan Singh, Charan
Singh, Brijendra, Vrandavan etc. with a common intention started beating to them by lathi and pharsa. It is alleged that Ratan singh inflicted pharsa blow on him, as a result of which, his finger of left hand was cut and thereafter all the accused started beating with lathis. 3. The trial court after conducting the trial under
Secs. 147, 148, 149, 326, 325 and 307 IPC vide its judgment dated 22.4.93 convicted the petitioner Ratan
Singh, Kishan singh, Vradawan Singh, Charan Singh and
Vijendra and awarded the punishment as given in the said order. The details have already been given in the
Judgment of Appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that in revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397/401
Cr.P.C., he would not be entitled to persuade this court for re-appreciating the evidence and assail the conviction of petitioners on that ground. However, on the point of sentence awarded by Appellate Court, he submits that sentence awarded by Appellate Court is on higher side and he cited various case laws before this court in which sentence in such cases under Sec. 326 IPC was reduced to the priod of imprisonment already undergone by accused ranging from 6 days to one month. Reliance has been placed by him on the following cases:
(i)1992 Cr.L.R.(Raj.),680(Gurucharan & ors. Vs. State)
(iii)SBCr.Rev. Pet. No.220/95 (Chittar Lal Vs. State) decided on 23.2.2005
(iv)SBCr.Rev.Pet. No.226/95 (Heera Lal Vs. State) decided on 16/2/2005 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following case laws for consideration of this court and he urged that if the conviction is upheld by this court, there is no need to reduce the sentence awarded by Appellate Court looking to the facts and circumstances of the case:
(i)AIR 2001 SC,1828 (Narsingh Prasad Vs. Rajkumar @
(ii)(2004)9 SCC,37 (State of UP Vs. Virendra Prasad)(para
(iii)(2004)11 SCC,576 (A.S.Krishnan and ors. Vs. State of
(iv)AIR 1970 SC,1279 6. However, he submits that it will ultimately depend upon facts of each case as to what appropriate punishment is considered appropriate by the court to be imposed in particular facts & circumstances of each case. 7. In the present facts & circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that incident in question which is said to have taken place on 15.3.1982 is about 24 years old now and accused petitioner Ratan Singh has already undergone imprisonment of about one month and 14 days. For other two petitioners Kishan Singh and Charan
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they were entitled to benefit of probation in accordance with Sec.360 Cr.P.C. and no reasons much less special reasons have been recorded by either of the court below in not extending with benefit to the accused petitioners in terms of Sec. 361 of Cr.P.C. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, the interest of justice would be met if period of sentence as far as accused petitioner Ratan singh is concerned, is reduced to the period already undergone by him with the condition that fine of Rs.400/- is increased to
Rs.5000/-, and other two other petitioners Kishan Singh and Charan Singh are given the benefit of probation under
Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. on the condition that fine to be paid by them is increased to Rs. 2500/- each and on furnishing their surety of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Hindoncity Distt. Sawaimadhopur. 9. With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.