The High Court partially allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under IPC 307/34. While maintaining the conviction, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, suspended it, and discharged the appellants on bail.
Sentence reduced to period undergone and suspended; accused released on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
J U D G M E N T
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161/1987 ( Kachru and anr. Vs. State)
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: 05/05/2015
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr.Rinesh Gupta, for the appellant/s. Mr.RS Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 3.3.1987 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in sessions case no. 62/1985 whereby he has convicted the appellant/s under Sec.307/34 IPC and sentenced to five years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No.94/1984 for the offences under Sec.307/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Gangdhar, Distt. Jhalawar. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The charges were framed against the accused-appellant Kachru for offence under Secs.307 or 326,325,324/34 IPC and under Sec.307/34 or 326/34,325, 323 IPC against Lalu. Both the accusedappellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses
and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of appellants under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above vide judgment dated 3.3.1987.
Against the said judgment dated 3.3.1987, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant/s.
Learned counsel for the appellant/s has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in custody.
It is further contended that the occurrence took place on 4.10.1984 i.e. 30 years ago, accused appellants Kachru and Lalu has remained in custody for approximately 77 days and 90 days respectively. They are old persons, having grand sons and grand daughters of marriageable age.
It is also contended that accused appellants is/are facing trial since long, they are not habitual offenders, no case is pending against them, hence they should be released on probation, if not, then their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated herein above.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned
order passed by the trial court is just and proper.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that accused appellants has remained in custody as mentioned above, they are not the habitual offenders, no case is made out against them, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions:
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.
Sandeep/-19
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants sentence should be reduced for the period already undergone in custody and suspended.
Whether probation is applicable given the long pendency and age of the appellants.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kachru
State
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
