Partly allowed

Om Prakash and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2022CRLA/800/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against conviction and sentence, the court considered whether to reduce the appellant's imprisonment term given the minor nature of injuries and time served. Holding that justice required adjustment, the court allowed the appeal partly, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and imposing a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs. 50,000 imposed payable to injured; bail bonds discharged.

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CRLA-800/2001]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 800/2001

Om Prakash And Ors

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

13/07/2022

¶14

This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶15

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the is appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.11.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh in Criminal Appeal No.43/2001 be quashed and set aside consequently the appellants may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.”

¶16

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

¶17

1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

¶18

2001.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No.43/2001

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLA-800/2001]

¶22

(46/95 of ADJ, Ratangarh), whereby the appellants no.2 to 4 have been given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and appellant no.1 was convicted for the offences under Sections as under:-

¶23

Section Sentence
Section 307 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo oneyears' R.I.
Section 324 IPC Three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo one months' R.I.
Section 447 IPC Three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Section 148 IPC One years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Section 27 of the Indian Three yearss R.I. and a fine of
Arms Act Rs.100/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo fifteen days' R.I.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is of 14.07.1997. Learned counsel further submits that the nature of the injuries were not dangerous to life and also none of them were on vital part. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant no.1 underwent custody of about 14 months during trial.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that since the appellants No.2, 3 & 4 were granted benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, he does not press the appeal to that extent, but he presses for the appellant no.1 that sentence awarded to him may be substituted with the period of

¶26

(3 of 4) [CRLA-800/2001]

¶27

sentence already undergone by him looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant no.1 was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09.11.2001 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (SOS) No.626/2001. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, makes a submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant no.1 may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submission and in alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellant no.1, which may be directed to be released to the injured person, who is Mula Ram. 9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶30

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶31

“ There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. ”

¶32

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶33

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CRLA-800/2001]

¶36

both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

¶37

This Court on conjoint reading of the facts that the only injury was on right leg and also the fact that the appellant no.1 has undergone the 14 months custody and on reading of other witnesses, particularly PW-1 Kunana Ram, PW-2 Bhanwar Lal, PW3 Manohari, PW-4 Mularam, PW-5 Dr. P.C. Kachwal, is convinced that the prayer of the counsel for the appellant ought to be accepted, while imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- upon appellant No.1. The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of three months from today and the same shall be released to the injured Mula Ram thereafter.

¶38

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of appellant no.1 under Sections 307, 324, 447, 148 IPC and Section 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶39

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶40

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶41

22-Sudheer/-

Om Prakash and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Punam Chand

Narpat Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Lal and Ors. Vs State

Sadeek Khan @ Pahalwan and Ors. Vs State

Yashpal Gupta Vs State