Partly allowed

Pyare Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC4 May 2015CRLA/487/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal to reduce his sentence. While maintaining the conviction, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, suspended the remainder, and canceled bail bonds, citing the age of the appellant and the time elapsed since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; balance of sentence suspended; bail bonds canceled; appellant need not surrender.

Pyare Lal Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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.487/1991 (Pyare Lal Vs. State)

¶4

DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: 04-05-2015

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

Mr.MM Ranjan, for the appellant/s. Mr.Jitendra Srimali, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.10.1991 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur city in sessions case no. 4/1989 whereby he has convicted the appellant under Sec.326 IPC and sentenced him two years RI and fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI.

¶8

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 10.7.1988, the Medical Officer, Govt. Dispensary, Gangapurcity sent a report at P.S. Gangarpurcity to the effect that Battilal, Sardar Singh, Meethya, Johri and Mst.Kalawati came in an injured condition after a fight and out of them, one Battilal was seriously injured. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.63/1988 for the offences under Sec.307, 323 and 341 IPC was registered at P.S. Bamanwas. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Secs.148, 307 and 324 IPC before the concerned court/Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity for trial. The trial court has framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined as many as 16 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 24.10.1991.

¶9

Against the said judgment dated 24.10.1991, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant.

¶10

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 appellant should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that the occurrence took place on 10.7.1988 i.e. 28 years ago; the age of the accused appellant is about 63 years; he remained in judicial custody for about 16 days; he is having sons and daughters, he is not the habitual offender and he belongs to a respectable family.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.LJ 2061 observed as under:

¶14

“Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The Judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Sec.326 of the India Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is 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 of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to

¶15

imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fimne 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, Ist 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.

¶16

Appeal dismissed.”

¶17

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Naib Singh (supra), and the fact that the appellant is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellant.

¶18

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

¶19

i) conviction of the appellant is maintained.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶24

Sandeep/-62

¶25

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

Pyare Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyare Lal 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

Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Vs Shantilal Jain and Ors.

I C I Ci Lombard General Insurance Co. Lt Vs Smt Rehana Bano and Others

Smt Geeta and Anr. Vs Manager R S R T C and Ors.

Surendra Singh and Others Vs State

Gopal Pandey Vs State

Ramkhilari Vs State