Partly allowed

Gorkhi and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2015CRLA/404/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Criminal Appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan disposed of an appeal against a conviction under Sections 326 and 323 IPC. The court dismissed the appeal filed by one appellant who had completed his probation, while partly allowing the appeal of the co-appellant. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced and suspended with bail cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced and suspended for one year; appellant released for period already undergone; bail bonds cancelled.

Gorkhi and Anr. Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 404/1995 (Gorkhi & Anr. Versus The State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Judgment :: 15^th July, 2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Mr. Vipul Jaiman, for the appellants Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 31.7.1995 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Alwar in Sessions Case No. 215/1993, whereby the learned court below while acquitting the other accused persons from the alleged offences, convicted the accused person Gorkhi for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year's SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI and convicted accused appellant Umrao for the offence under Section 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing him, he has been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.5.1995, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the complainant. On the basis of said report, the police registered FIR and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan for the offence under

¶11

¶12

Sections 326, 324, 323, 454, 448 readwith 34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act. Thereafter the charges were framed, the accused persons denied for the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. They also produced the witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment and order dated 31.7.1995, acquitting some of the accused persons, but convicting the accused appellants as indicated as indicated here-in-above.

¶13

Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that appellant Umrao had been released on probation and he has successfully completed his probation period, as such he does not want to press the appeal filed on his behalf and the same may be dismissed as such.

¶15

So far as the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Gorkhi is concerned, learned counsel has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1993 i.e. about 22 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 22 years; when the

¶16

¶17

occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged person; the accused appellant has remained in custody for about 7 days, the appellant is the married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not previously convicted person; one of the accused Umrao has already been given the benefit of probation whereas Gorkhi has been sentenced to undergo 1 year's SI; hence he should also be released on probation under Section 360 CrPC or under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated here-in-above.

¶18

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Naib Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061 , wherein their Lordships observed as under:

¶19

"Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the

¶20

¶21

appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation.

¶22

Appeal dismissed."

¶23

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the appellant Gorkhi should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated above.

¶24

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

¶25

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

¶26

i) The appeal filed by Umraro stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶27

i) The appeal filed by the appellant Gorkhi is partly allowed;

¶28

ii) His conviction is maintained. His sentence is reduced and he is released

¶29

¶30

for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.

¶31

iii)The sentence of the accused appellant Gorkhi was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶32

Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.

¶33

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Gorkhi and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorkhi 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

Dangar Singh and Ors. Vs State

Kailash Chander Vs State

Balvant Singh and Ors. Vs State

Chotiya Alis Chote Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

State Vs Chotu

Ranveer Singh Vs State