Partly allowed

Mubeen and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC7 May 2013CRLA/1657/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court convicted the appellants under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years. On appeal, finding no ground to challenge conviction but considering the appellants' good conduct and family background, the court commuted the sentence to 8 years and directed remission.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from 10 years to 8 years; direction to jail authorities to provide remission benefits according to law.

Mubeen and Anr. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

SB Criminal Appeal No. 1657/2007 (Mubeen & Anr. Versus The State of Rajasthan)

¶5

7^th May, 2013

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore, for the accused appellants Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, P.P. for the State

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.9.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 31/2007, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellants under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's imprisonment.

¶9

Since learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the order of conviction of appellants passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it is not necessary to refer the facts and evidence of the case in detail.

¶10

Learned counsel has requested to this Court that accused appellants Mubeen and Shaheed are in judicial lock up since the last about six years and six

¶11

¶12

months and the behaviour of the accused appellants in judicial lock up is good. They are young persons and belong to respectable family. Hence, they should be released on the period already undergone by him, and if not, then their sentence should be reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Further he has requested to this Court that direction should be given to the concerned jail authorities to provide the benefit of remission to the appellants in accordance with law. He has further drew the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamil @ Rashid Hussain Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1623/2007), whereby vide order dated 15.9.2011, the sentence of accused appellant therein was reduced and he was directed to be released on the period already undergone by him.

¶13

Learned PP has opposed the same.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as conviction of the accused appellants is concerned, it is maintained. So far as sentence awarded

¶16

¶17

to the accused appellants is concerned, for the ends of justice, it is reduced from 10 years to 8 years. Further, I direct to the concerned jail authorities to provide the benefit of remission to the appellants, in accordance with law.

¶18

The appeal stands partly allowed, as indicated here-in-above.

¶19

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

¶20

¶21

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA

¶22

Mubeen and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeen and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

State Vs Intjaar and Ors.

Forulal Urf Foru Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Parvez Khan Vs State

Jameel Ahm,Ed Vs State

Hem Raj Vs State