Partly allowed

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2024CRLA/1031/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed the conviction and sentence of two appellants following a compromise between parties, based on precedents Ramgopal and Gian Singh. The appeals of the other two appellants were held abated due to their death during the appeal's pendency.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of conviction and sentence awarded to appellant Nos. 2 and 4. Appeal of appellant Nos. 1 and 3 stands abated.

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1031/2002

¶3

Mohan Singh S/o Prabhu Singh

¶4

Gopal Singh S/o Prabhu Singh

¶5

Hari Singh S/o Prabhu Singh

¶6

Gordhan Singh S/o Prabhu Singh

¶7

All resident of Sogar, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N K Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

08/04/2024

¶16

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accusedappellants against the judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.77/2001 by which the appellants have been convicted as under:-

¶17

Name	Offence punishable under Section	Pu	nishment
Gordhan	U/s. 326 of IPC	To suffer four year Rs.1,000/ further months S.	imprisonment R.I and fine - in default undergo I.	for of to two
	U/s. 324 of IPC	To suffer twoyear	imprisonment R.I. and fine	for of

¶18

	(2 of 4)	[CRLA-1031/2002]
		Rs.500/- in default to further undergo one month S.I.
	U/s. 323 IPC	To suffer imprisonment for six months R.I. and fine Rs.250/- in default to further under 15 days S.I.
Mohan Singh, Gopal and Hari Singh	U/s. 326/34	To suffer imprisonment for four years R.I. and fine Rs.1,000/- in default to further undergo 1 months S.I.
Gopal Singh and Hari Singh	U/s. 324 IPC	To suffer imprisonment for two years R.I. and fine Rs.500/- in default to furthe undergo 1 months S.I.
Mohan Singh	U/s.324/34 IPC	To suffer imprisonment for 2 years R.I. and fine Rs.500/- in default to further undergo 1 month S.I.
	U/s. 323 IPC	To suffer imprisonment for six months R.I. and fine Rs.250/- in default to further under 15 days S.I.
Gopal, Hari	U/s.323/34 IPC	To suffer imprisonment for
Singh, Gordhan		6 months R.I. and fine
Singh		Rs.250/- in default to further undergo 15 days S.I.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants as well as the complainant and injured persons are the neighbours and cross-cases were lodged between them for which separate criminal cases were registered, but after trial, the complainant-party has been acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 06.08.2002 by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur against which a separate Criminal Revision Petition bearing No.1111/2002 has

¶20

[CRLA-1031/2002]

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

been submitted before this Court, assailing their judgment of acquittal.

¶23

Counsel submits that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant Mohan Singh expired on 17.11.2006, his death certificate has also been placed on the record. Counsel submits that as per his information even Hari Singh has also expired. Counsel submits that now the age of the appellant Gopal Singh is more than 80 years and the age of the appellant Gordhan Singh is more than 75 years and they are in their advance age of life. Counsel submits that during pendency of the instant appeal and the cross-revision Criminal Revision Petition No.1111/2002, compromise has taken place between the complainant and the injured persons. Counsel submits that one of the injured Jawahar Singh has expired on 02.10.2003 hence, his legal representatives have signed the compromise and the other injured Yogendra Singh and Rohan Singh and Bhikham have submitted their affidavits admitting factum of compromise being arrived at between the parties. Counsel submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and has amicably settled their dispute, hence, under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below vide judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.77/2001 be quashed and set aside, in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) and in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010 (10) SCC 303

¶24

[CRLA-1031/2002]

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and counsel for the complainant concurs with the fact of compromise being arrived at between the parties.

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and applying the ratio in the decision of Ramgopal (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) , this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Nos.2 and 4 by the trial Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2002 and the appeal to the extent of the appellant No.1 Mohan Singh and the appellant No.3 Hari Singh stands abated as they have expired during pendency of this appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 Gopal Singh and appellant No.4 Gordhan Singh under Section 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 vide judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.77/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶29

The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

The application for suspension of sentence has already been decided.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Aayush Sharma/64

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra S/O Shri Prabhulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash S/O Shri Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar S/O Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste Ahir Vs State of

Gopal Vs Jawahar Singh and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat Vs Satbir Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh