In this criminal appeal, the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence for the offence under Section 325 IPC to the period already served. The court declined the prayer for probation but disallowed further imprisonment.
The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in confinement. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
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. 491/1994 (Ranveer Singh Versus The State of Rajasthan)
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. V.K. Gupta, for the appellant Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 17.9.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun City in Sessions Case No. 377/1992, whereby the learned court below convicted him for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 300/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of injured Shiv Charan Lal, the police registered FIR No. 328/1992 and started the investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused person were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both
2
the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 17.9.1994 has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as indicated herein-above.
Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant 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 1992 i.e. about 23 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 23 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged person; the accused appellant has remained in custody for about 4 days; the appellant is married person and having the children of marriageable age, he is not the previously convicted person; it is the first offence of his life; hence either he 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
3
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 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 benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties
4
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 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in confinement?
Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of probation or release in view of his age and circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naib Singh Versus State of PunjabRelied on¶14
1986 Cr.L.J. 2061
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ranveer Singh
The State of Rajasthan
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
