Partly allowed

Chitar and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2023CRLA/219/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants regarding offences under the IPC. The court dismissed the appeals of the deceased appellants. For the surviving appellant, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was remitted to the period already undergone, while the fine was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; bail bonds discharged; appeal treated as allowed on sentence reduction.

Chitar and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43276]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 219/2001

¶4

Chittar S/o Shri Trilok, B/c Bheel, R/o Gegpura, P.S. Rashmi, District Bhilwara.

¶5

Sukha S/o Shri Uda, B/c Bheel, R/o Turkia Kala, PS Kapasan, District Bhilwara.

¶6

Nanda S/o Shri Narayan, B/c Bheel, R/o Gegpura, PS Rashmi, District Bhilwara

----Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. SL Sukhwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶13

Judgment

¶14

12/12/2023

¶15

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.03.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No.8/1997 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as under :

¶16

Offence U/s 326/34 IPC : Three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo two months’ S.I.

¶17

Offence U/s 325/34 IPC : Two years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one and half months’ S.I.

¶18

Offence U/s 324/34 IPC : One year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one month’s S.I.

¶19

Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo fifteen days’ S.I.

¶20

Offence U/s 341 IPC : Fifteen days’ S.I.

[2023:RJ-JD:43276]

[CRLA-219/2001]

(2 of 4)

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.1996, complainant Deoji Bheel submitted an oral report to police officials of P.S. Rashmi to the effect that when he was going towards Gegpura along with his relatives, near Luharia Bavji, the accused-appellant came armed with axe and lathis and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. Due to the injuries, complainant became unconscious and he was taken to hospital by his relatives. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 IPC and started investigation.

¶26

On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellants for offences under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323, 341/34 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶27

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

¶28

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.03.2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

¶29

The criminal appeal qua appellants No.1 & 3, Chittar & Nanda respectively has already been dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023, as both the appellants No.1 & 3 had expired.

[2023:RJ-JD:43276]

[CRLA-219/2001]

(3 of 4)

So far as appellant No.2 Sukha is concerned, at the threshold, learned counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and the accused appellant No.2 has so far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

¶35

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants.

¶36

Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1996 and the main allegation of causing head injury was upon appellant No.1 Chhitar, who has already expired and the appellant No.2 has so far undergone a period of one month incarceration, out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant No.2 has remained behind the bars for quite some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant No.2 while maintaining the amount of fine.

¶37

[2023:RJ-JD:43276]

¶38

[CRLA-219/2001]

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant No.2’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC , the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo two months’ S.I. The appellant No.2 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶40

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶41

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶42

286-MS/-

Chitar and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitar 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

Badaniya and Ors. Vs State

Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya Vs State

Vicky @ Inderjeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Rasid @ Rasid Ahmed Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State