Partly allowed

Puran, S/O Mangla v. State of

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLA/8/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC with three years' rigorous imprisonment. Conviction not challenged; compromise between complainant and appellant was verified by the trial court. Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with three months' time to deposit

Puran, S/O Mangla Vs State of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11912]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 8/1992

¶4

Puran son of Mangla, Resident of Police Lines, Jawahar Nagar, Ajmer

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. T S Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra-PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

07/03/2024

¶13

The instant appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 19.12.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.57/1990 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that upon parcha bayan exhibit (6) of the complainant PW-3 Sattu alias Satyanarayan, an FIR was registered wherein it was was alleged by the complainant that he is doing the business of selling eggs on a cart and the accused Puran, was a watchman nearby having enmity with the complainant, and has inflicted injuries on his person.

[2024:RJ-JP:11912]

[CRLA-8/1992]

(2 of 4)

Upon this report, Crime No.143/1990 was registered with Police Station Clock Tower, Ajmer and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accusedpetitioner for the above offence under Section 307 IPC and charge was framed against the appellant for the above offence by the Trial Court where the appellant denied the charges and claim trial.

¶19

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

¶20

Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.1991 convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence charged and sentenced him as stated above.

¶21

Aggrieved by the conviction of sentence, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of this appeal, the complainant has entered into the compromise with the petitioner and submitted an application before this Court on 23.09.2017 indicating therein that he does not want to prosecute the appellant.

¶22

After receipt of the aforesaid application submitted by the complainant this Court directed the trial court to verify the factum of the compromise thereafter the complainant appeared before the trial court on 20.03.2018 where statements of the complainant Satyanarayan @ Sattu and the appellant Pooran were reocrded as court witnesses and both these pesons have admitted the factum of compromise. The compromise has been duly

[2024:RJ-JP:11912]

[CRLA-8/1992]

(3 of 4)

attested and verified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer vide its order dated 20.03.2018 and the verification report has been sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Ajmer to this Court.

¶27

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction and submits that the occurrence relates back to the year 1990 and the appellant has suffered sentence of more than three months out of the total sentence. He further submits that looking to the change circumstances of the matter and looking to the fact that compromise has taken place between the parties and the factum of compromise has been duly verified by the learned trial Judge, the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

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

¶29

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence and the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge regarding conviction of the appellant.

¶30

This fact is not in dispute that the occurrence has taken place way back in the year 1990 and the appellant has already undergone the period of more than three months incarceration out of total sentence and also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial, thus, looking to the fact that during pendency of this appeal, the compromise has taken place between the

[2024:RJ-JP:11912]

[CRLA-8/1992]

(4 of 4)

parties and the complainant injured does not want to prosecute the appellant. Thus looking to the overall circumstances of the case 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 to the appellant be affirmed and the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed while maintaining the appellant’s conviction for the offences under Section 307 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence would be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The amount of fine is hereby maintained and three months time is granted to the appellant to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶36

Keeping in view the mandate contained under Section 437 A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and one surety bond of the like amount before the Trial Court with the stipulation that he would appear before the Apex Court in case any appeal or any Leave to Appeal is prefered against this judgment and he would appear before the Apex Court after receipt of notice. The aforesaid bonds would remain effective for a period of six months.

¶37

The Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Aayush Sharma/7

Puran, S/O Mangla v. State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran, S/O Mangla v. State of

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

Dharmendra Kumar S/O Shri Bhagirathmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Singh @ Karkalli S/O Hukum Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh S/O Guljari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shehjad @ Aasish S/O Nawab Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Singh S/O Kishana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan