Partly allowed

Indra Raj v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CRLA/101/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur heard a criminal appeal where the appellant, already convicted and serving time, sought sentence commutation. The court accepted that extended incarceration was suffered in good faith for a trivial matter and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; appellant held on bail and bail bonds discharged.

Indra Raj Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 101/1995

¶4

Indra Raj S/o Shri Hari Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Binjhvayla, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate,
	assisted by Mr. Praveen Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Judgment

¶12

14/08/2023

¶13

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.02.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.54/1990 (69/1989 - old), whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. He has also been directed to deposit a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be disbursed to the father of the deceased.

¶14

Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 22.05.1989 at 06.30 p.m. Keshuram S/o

[CRLA-101/1995]

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

(2 of 6)

Khemaram resident of Kuchor Angooni submitted an oral information at the Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner to the effect that the complainant and his brothers Mani Ram and Surja Ram came back from Bikaner at about 02.30 p.m. and were purchasing vegetables etc. at Napasar Market. At about 04.30 p.m., Indraj S/o Hari Ram Jat, country made liquor contractor, was going from Bus Stand towards Kilchu Road. Mani Ram went to him for liquor and asked him to give a quarter from his shop, for which Indraj asked for Rs.15/-, upon which Mani Ram told that earlier only Rs.9/- was charged for the same. An altercation took place on this issue. Indraj pushed and made him fall on the ground and kicked him on head and other vital parts. The complainant and Surja Ram intervened and took Indraj in control. Hari Ram and Mohan Lal also came there. Mani Ram became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. On the aforesaid information, FIR No.18/1989 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶19

The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant

¶20

for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

[CRLA-101/1995]

(3 of 6)

the case. 5 documents were exhibited in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC vide judgment dated 23.02.1995, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

¶25

After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that an altercation ensued on a trivial issue regarding price of quarter of liquor and in the heat of the moment, the appellant, who was a young boy aged 20 years, pushed and kicked the deceased. The incident is of the year 1989. It was the first criminal case registered against the appellant. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the rigor of criminal case for good 34 years and has languished in jail for nearly 4 months during trial and after conviction. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail at this stage. He, therefore, prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶26

Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the

¶27

(4 of 6) [CRLA-101/1995]

¶28

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

¶29

appellant has remained behind the bars for some time, it was the first criminal case registered against him and that the incident is very old and much time has already gone by since then.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record.

¶31

Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶32

As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1989. The dispute arose on a trivial issue of price of quarter of liquor and in the spur of the moment the appellant caused injuries to the deceased. At the time of the incident, the accused appellant was 20 years of age and now he has turned 54. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 34 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He has remained incarcerated for around 4 months and the total sentence awarded is 1 year. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and

(5 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

[CRLA-101/1995]

since the appellant is living peacefully since last 34 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon him.

¶37

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellant also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶38

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.54/1990 (69/1989 - old) is affirmed, but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:25698]

[CRLA-101/1995]

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶43

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶45

Record be sent back to the trial court.

¶46

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶47

56-Pramod/-

Indra Raj v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Raj 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

Sagar Mal Vs State

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram @ Vicky Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Ram and Anr. Vs State

Kapil Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs State