Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY SIFNGH versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AJAY SIFNGH v STATE - CRLA Case No. 255 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 1635 (4 April 2007)

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

IN

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255/2007

Ajay Singh S/o Prahlad Singh ...Accused-Appellant

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the P.P. ...Respondent

Date of Judgment ::: 4th April, 2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar with

Shri M.P. Khandelwal, Counsel for accused-appellant

Smt. Nirmala Sharma, P.P., for the State

By the Court:-

Accused-appellant Ajay Singh S/o Prahlad Singh has preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., 31st against the judgment and order dated January, 2007, passed by the Additional District & Sessions

Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case

No.48 of 2005, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section Sentence of imprisonment 332, IPC To undergo 3 years simple imprisonment 353, IPC To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment 224, IPC To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment // 2 //

Under Section Sentence of imprisonment 3 of the Prevention To undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a of Damage to Public fine of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine,

Property Act to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the overwhelming prosecution evidence, did not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellant passed by the trial court and contended that maximum sentence awarded against the accused-appellant by the trial court is 4 years under Section 3 of the

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the appellant has already remained in jail for two years and ten months as he is in custody since 5th

June, 2004,, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

I have examined the impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as the prosecution evidence including the statements of complainant PW-12

Raghuveer Das, PW-3 Chandrapal Singh, PW-11 Shivram

Sharma, PW-1 Dharam Singh, PW-2 Kan Singh and other prosecution witnesses also, and after considering their statements I am satisfied that the learned trial // 3 // court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant and the learned counsel for the appellant rightly did not challenge the conviction on merits.

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court is concerned, I find that under Section 3 of the

Act of 1984 the minimum sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is prescribed which may extend to 5 years imprisonment and with fine. The appellant has already completed the minimum sentence of 6 months as he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months in the present case.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellant under Section 332, IPC, as well as under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, to a period of sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months, already undergone by him.

Consequently, the appeal of the accused- appellant is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 353 and 224,

IPC, is upheld. The conviction of the appellant under // 4 //

Section 332, IPC, and Section 3 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.

The appellant is in jail, therefore, he may be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.

(Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.