Partly allowed

Imran Hussain v. State

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2023CRLAS/471/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the sentence awarded for an offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant while maintaining the fine amount.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained. Bail bonds discharged. Two months grace for fine payment.

Imran Hussain Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41200]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 471/2019

¶4

Imran Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Yusuf, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Kunjara, Resident Of 5, Churigharon-Ka-Mohalla, Anjuman Chowk, Kunjarwari, P.s.dhanmandi, Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment / Order

¶11

29/11/2023

¶12

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.17/2019 (18/2013) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo three years’ R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months’ additional imprisonment. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2012 complainant Dilip Kumar Dholi gave a report at Police Station Ambamata, stating therein that, on 24.12.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. when he was standing outside his house, appellant alongwith 5-7 other boys came and started abusing him and demanded Rs.1 Lac from

[2023:RJ-JD:41200]

[CRLAS-471/2019]

(2 of 4)

him, which he denied. Thereafter appellant-Imran Kunjda threatened to kill him, if he fails to fulfill his demand. Thereafter Imran Kunjda called some other accused, who also came on the spot and they forcibly entered into the house of the complainant. Accused Imran with an intention to kill, fired at the complainant, which barely missed the complainant. However, his niece-Neha sustained fire-arm injuries. On raising hue and cry, Nikhil, Yogendra Singh & Rajesh Panwar came to their rescue and the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence. On this report, Police lodged a case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 387, 307, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(X), (2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and started investigation. After investigation, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant. He denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶17

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and 31 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

¶18

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.03.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act only as mentioned earlier.

¶19

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused appellant is not challenging the finding of conviction but since the accused appellant has remained in custody and he has already suffered a sentence of 08 months and 20 days, out of total sentence of three years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

[2023:RJ-JD:41200]

[CRLAS-471/2019]

(3 of 4)

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)

¶24

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

¶25

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-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the custody certificate of the appellant according to which the appellant has so far undergone a period of 08 months and 20 days. Thus, undisputedly, the appellant has so far undergone a period of more than eight months out of the total three years rigorous imprisonment so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine amount.

¶26

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction and sentence for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the

¶27

(4 of 4) [CRLAS-471/2019]

¶28

[2023:RJ-JD:41200]

¶29

period already undergone by him, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo two months’ additional imprisonment. Two month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶30

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

¶31

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶32

123-Ishan/-

Imran Hussain v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Hussain 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

Shafi Mohammed Vs State

Lal Chand Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindrakumar Sharma Vs Gautam Bohra

Mahendar Singh and Anr. Vs State

Birma Devi Vs State of Rajasthan