Allowed

Bheru Lal and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2017CRLA/205/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the criminal appeal filed by appellants Bherulal and Mansingh convicted under Section 457 IPC after more than thirty-one years. It held that equities must be balanced given the long delay and the appellants' financial responsibility, reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone but enhancing the fine.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by each appellant, while the fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000.

Bheru Lal and Ors. Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 205 / 1993

¶3

Bheru Lal and another

----Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mootha For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Order

¶10

08/12/2017 :

¶11

Instant appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant, namely Bherulal and Mansingh, both residents of Khokhoriya-Khurd , Police Station Pagaria District Jhalawar, in order to assail the impugned judgment dated 22.05.1993 rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No.103/1991, whereby the accusedappellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one-&half year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶12

On 04.07.2015 the present appeal was adjourned by the Co-ordinate Bench because none had caused appearance on behalf of the appellants. On 13.06.2016 the matter was again adjourned with the direction to the ld. Public Prosecutor to seek a report from the concerned Police Station with regard to the whereabouts of the appellants. On 06.02.2017 another Co-ordinate Bench again directed ld. Public Prosecutor to find out the whereabouts of the accused-appellants.

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLA-205/1993]

¶15

For non-compliance, on 08.02.2017 the matter was adjourned by the Court Master of the Court for 08.03.2017. On 13.04.2017 bailable warrants were issued against the appellants. On 12.05.2017 Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Advocate caused appearance for Bherulal and to find out the whereabouts of Mansingh, the matter was adjourned but thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2017, 04.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 respectively. On 18.09.2017 again an adjournment was granted to the ld. Public Prosecutor to produce the status report of the appellant– Mansingh.

¶16

Today, the situation is not different.

¶17

Both the appellants, namely Bherulal & Mansingh, in Sessions Trial Case No.103/1991 were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one-&-half years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶18

As per prosecution case, on 12.10.1986 in the evening at around 05:30 P.M. Mst. Leelabai had lodged a report stating that in the previous night when she was sleeping, the door of her room was opened and somebody closed his mouth and when she woke up in the dim-light of the chimney (lantern), she had seen accused- Mansingh.

¶19

In the present case, the occurrence pertains to the year, 1986 and the period of thirty-one years had elapsed.

¶20

Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that he shall not assail the impugned judgment of conviction.

¶21

The right of speedy trial vest in the accused.

¶22

It is a settled legal position that the Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensures that each accused will get speedy trial. It

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLA-205/1993]

¶25

is also a settled legal position that the appeal is continuation of the trial. The appellants are in the corridors of the Court from last thirty-one years. The sentence awarded upon them for offence punishable under Section 457 I.P.C. is one-&-half years.

¶26

According to the ld. Counsel, the appellants have undergone few days of actual sentence. It has been further contended by the ld. Counsel that the appellant has neither committed any offence earlier or thereafter. Counsel has submitted that by now the responsibility of the family upon the appellants have increased and they are sole bread earner of the family.

¶27

Considering the nature of offence, the sentence awarded and sufferance of a protracted trial, this Court is of the view that the equities ought to be balanced and, hence, the sentence awarded upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, qua each appellant. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

¶28

With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶29

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶30

ashok

Bheru Lal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheru Lal and Ors. 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

Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vishnu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

State Vs Bhoora and Ors.

M/S Flora-O-Foods Vs Director Integrated Child DEVELOPMENTandOR

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ramraj Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.