In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction and sought probation or release on bail citing age and delay. The High Court rejected the probation request but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and granted bail.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail granted; conviction maintained.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 48/1993 (Bhanwar Lal Versus State of Rajasthan)
:: Date of Judgment 5th August, 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. PRS Rajawat, for the appellant Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 20.1.1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, Camp Aklera in Sessions Case No. 67/1990, whereby he acquitted the accused persons Shankar and Badri Lal for the offence under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 325/34 and 323 IPC and acquitted the accused Bhanwar Lal for the offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323 IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.8.1989, a First Information Report was submitted by Bhairu Lal at Police Station, Bhalta against the accused persons. On the basis of said report, the police registered FIR and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate
2
concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar Camp Aklera for trial. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused Bhanwar Lal for the offence under Sections 307/34, 326, 325/34 and 323 IPC and against accused Shankar and Badri Lal for the offence under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 325/34 and 323 IPC, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. Since one of the accused Harchanda absconded, as such the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC was initiated against him. The prosecution produced its witnesses. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 20.1.1993 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above.
Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that just to purchase the peace of mind, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1989 i.e. about 26 years ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 26 years; at that time the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged
3
person and suffering from oldness diseases; other coaccused persons have been acquitted and only accused appellant has been convicted; he has remained in custody for about 24 days; he is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not the habitual offender; it is the first offence of his life, hence either the appellant should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein-above.
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:
"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 appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence
4
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.
Appeal dismissed."
Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the accused person should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The judgment of the court below is just and proper, hence no interference is required by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is
5
disposed of with the following directions:
i) The Cr. Appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed;
ii) His conviction is maintained;
iii)His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. iv) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.
Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused appellant is eligible for probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the CrPC given his age and the delay in trial?
Whether the sentence passed by the trial court needs to be modified to meet the ends of justice?
Whether the appellant deserves release on bail considering he has already undergone the requisite period of confinement?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naib Singh Versus State of PunjabReferred¶17
Naib Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhanwar Lal
Dr. R.S. Shekhawat
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
Parties & counsel
