Partly allowed

Geetam Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2018CRLA/503/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant Geetam Singh abated the appeal after his death. Regarding co-appellant Rajpal, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone due to the protracted trial spanning over three decades involving witnesses from the time of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment on Rajpal reduced to period already undergone; appeal regarding Geetam Singh dismissed as abated.

Geetam Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 503 / 1993

¶3

Geetam Singh son of Shri Sardar Singh and another

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Order

¶12

08/02/2018 :

¶13

This Court on 28.11.2017 had passed the following order :-

¶14

“The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that from the last so many years, appellants have not contacted his office and hence, he has no instructions to pursue the appeal.

¶15

Issue bailable warrants to effect service upon the appellants.

¶16

Bailable warrant to be issued by Dy. Registrar (Judicial) shall be executed by SHO, Police Station Badi, Dholpur.

¶17

List this case on 8.2.2018.

¶18

A copy of this order under the seal and signatures of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. NS Dhakad learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance.”

¶19

In pursuance thereof, Station House Officer, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur has submitted a Report bearing No.422 dated 28.01.2018.

¶20

The said report reads as under :-

¶21

“ dk;ky; Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk dZ puiqj ftyk /kka yiqS j

¶22

Øekad 422

¶23

Jheku ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

fnukad 28-01-18

(2 of 3)

[CRLA-503/1993]

jktLFkku t;iqj

fo"k;%& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ls izkIr tekurh okj.V ljdkj cuke xhre fØehuy vihy la[;k 503@1993 dh rkehy dsa laca/k esaA

¶29

lwpuk ckcr

¶30

izlax%& Jhekuth ds v)Z’kkldh; i= Øekad 214 fnukad 23-01-2018 dh ikyuk esA

¶31

egksn;]

¶32

mijksDr fOk"k;kZUrxZr fuosnu gS fd ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; t;iqj ls fØehuy vihy la[;k 503@1993 ljdkj cuke xhre esa tekurh okj.V 1 xhre iq= ljnkjflag 2- jktiky iq= nysy flag tkfr jktiwr fuoklhx.k ykykSuh Fkkuk dapuiqj /kkSyiqj ds tekurh okj.V rkehy gsrq Fkkuk gktk ij izkIr gq;s ftudh rkehy ,plh xtuflag 33 ds }kjk djkbZ rks mDr xhreflag iq= ljnkjflag tkfr Bkdqj fuoklh ykykSuh dh 09-04-2017 dks eR;q gks pqdh gSA ftldk eR;q izek.k i= izkIr dj tekurh okj.kV ds lkFk layXu gSA ,oa jktiky iq= nysyflag ls rkehy djkdj teku eqpydk fy;k tkdj tekurh okj.V ds lkFk layXu gSA vr tekurh okj.V ckn rkehy Jheku dh lsok esa izsf"kr gSaA

¶33

vr% ikyuk fjiksVZ Jheku th dh lsok esa lknj izsf"kr gSA

¶34

Fkkukf/kdkjh Fkkuk dpauiqj.”

¶35

As per the said report, Geetam Singh son of Sardar Singh, appellant No.1 has expired on 09.04.2017 during pendency of the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal, qua Geetam Singh, appellant No.1 is, hereby, dismissed as having abated.

¶36

Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant No.2 – Rajpal, has submitted that so far as appellant No.2 - Rajpal son of Dalel Singh is concerned, he has only been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment.

¶37

Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant No.2 – Rajpal, has contended that he shall not assail the impugned judgment of conviction qua the appellant No.2 – Rajpal. He shall restrict his prayer to urge that sentence of appellant No.2-Rajpal be reduced.

¶38

In the present case, the occurrence had taken place way back on 18.09.1988 and the appellant No.2 – Rajpal is also in the

¶39

(3 of 3)

¶40

[CRLA-503/1993]

¶41

corridors of the Court from last more than twenty-nine years. It is a settled legal position that the appeal is continuation of the trial.

¶42

Considering the fact that about three decades are going to elapse and appellant No.2- Rajpal has suffered a protracted trial, the sentence of six months awarded upon him for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine and default clause.

¶43

With the above modification in the sentence, qua Rajpal, appellant No.2, the appeal is disposed of.

¶44

As already ordered, the appeal, qua Geetam Singh, appellant No.1 is dismissed as having abated.

¶45

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶46

ashok

Geetam Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetam Singh 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

Jagna Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Sandeep Pandey Vs Sudhanshu Pant and Others

Vinod Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Santosh and Others Vs Har Chand and Others

The Official Liquidator Vs Banna Ram , Nagaur