Partly allowed

Dhan Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC7 May 2015CRLA/337/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal appeal partly, maintaining conviction under Section 498A IPC but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The appellants were granted bail, suspended sentence, and their bail bonds cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone in custody; appeal dismissed as to conviction; bail granted, surrender not required, bonds cancelled.

Dhan Singh Vs State — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

J U D G M E N T

¶3

S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.337/1994 (Dhan Singh and anr. Vs. State)

¶4

DATE OF JUDGMENT :::::

¶5

07/05/2015

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA

¶7

SHARMA

¶8

Mr.SS Hora, for the appellant/s.

¶9

Mr.Jitendra Srimali, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶10

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 1.7.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Ajmer in sessions case no. 177/1991 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

¶11

Appellant Dhan Singh:

¶12

U/s.498A IPC: Sentenced to two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo four month SI.

¶13

Appellant Smt.Kastoori

¶14

U/s.498A IPC: Sentenced to nine months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI.

¶15

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of Smt.Bhagwati, an FIR No.32/1991 came to be registered at P.S. Alwar Gate, Ajmer. The police registered the case under Secs.306 and 498A IPC. After investigation, police arrested the appellants and submitted the challan before the concerned Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions, which transferred it to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Ajmer for trial.

¶16

Both the appellants denied the charges of having committed offence under Sec.306 and 498A IPC and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of appellant 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 1.7.1994 for the offence under Sec.498A IPC only, and acquitted both of them from the offence under Sec.306 IPC.

¶17

Against the said judgment dated 1.7.1994, this

¶18

appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants 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 on the grounds that accused appellant Dhan Singh has remained in custody for 05 days whereas Smt.Kastoori has remained in custody for 01 days, they are old persons of 55 years and 76 years respectively, having children including grand sons and grand daughters of marriageable age, the occurrence took place on 10.4.1991, they are facing trial since long, they are not habitual offenders nor they are previously convicts, no case is pending against them, in fact to save the wife of Dhan Singh, his sister jumped into the well and for rescue operation, she has died. It has also been contended that there are no evidence available on record to connect the appellants with the alleged crime, hence it has been requested that the appellants should be released on probation, if

¶20

not, then their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated herein above.

¶21

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. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶22

It has been contended that neither the appellants should be released on probation nor their sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶23

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

¶24

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that accused appellants have remained in custody for 5 days and 01 day respectively, they are at present aged 55 years and 76 years old persons, they are not previously convicts, they are not the habitual offenders, no case is made

¶25

out against them, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants.

¶26

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions:

¶27

i) The conviction of the appellants is maintained.

¶28

ii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above.

¶29

iii)The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled.

¶30

iv)Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.

¶31

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶32

Sandeep/-54

¶33

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.

Dhan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Kant and Ors. Vs State

Bhagwan Swaroop Vs State

Chagan Lal Vs State

Bane Singh and Ors. Vs State

Ranveer Vs State

Dinesh Kumar Vs State