Partly allowed

Ayub Khan S/O Sattar Khan Muslim, v. State of

Rajasthan HC23 May 2024CRLA/267/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special criminal appeal against conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, enhanced the fine to Rs. 25,000, granted personal bond, and ordered compounding the fine for the injured party.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 25,000; personal bond directed; bail discharged.

Ayub Khan S/O Sattar Khan Muslim, Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:24661]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 267/1991

¶4

Ayub Khan S/o Sattar Khan, aged about 20 years, R/o Plot No. C-22, Bhatta Basti, Shastrinagar, Jaipur. At present in Central Jain, Jaipur.

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv. for Mr. S.S. Ali, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Judgment

¶12

23/05/2024

¶13

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 30.07.1991 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity), Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 2/90 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to pay fine further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.1990 ‘Parcha Bayan’ (Exhibit-P) of the injured Zahir was recorded and an First Information Report (FIR) No. 86/1990 was registered with Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 307, 324 & 326 IPC, wherein, it was alleged that the appellant threw acid on his body due to which some part of his body sustain burn injuries. After registration of the FIR, the police investigated the

[2024:RJ-JP:24661]

[CRLA-267/1991]

(2 of 4)

matter and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 IPC, thereafter charges were framed against the appellant for the above offences and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶19

During the course of investigation, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited certain documents thereafter explanation of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied his participation in the incident but in defence no evidence was produced. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.07.1991 acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 307 IPC but convicted him for the offence under Section 326 IPC. His sentence as stated above.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction and submits that the occurrence is related to the year 1990 and the appellant has undergone for more than nine months out of the total sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the appellant nor compassion or sympathy is called in the said case. 6. This Court has perused the evidence of the prosecution and the material available on the record as well as the judgment

[2024:RJ-JP:24661]

[CRLA-267/1991]

(3 of 4)

passed by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the accusedappellant.

¶26

Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to the year 1990 and the appellant has so far undergone the sentence of more than nine months incarceration and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial, thus looking to the overall circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind bars for a considerable time and it would be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 326 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶27

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed while maintaining the appellant’s conviction for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The sentence awarded to him for the said offence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the appellant is increased to Rs.25,000/-. Three months time is granted to the appellant to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. On deposition of the aforesaid amount, the said amount be disbursed to the injured.

¶28

It is made clear that, in case, the default in payment of fine is made by the appellant, he shall further undergo one year simple imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. He is not required to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.

¶29

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of six weeks from

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:24661]

[CRLA-267/1991]

today, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave to Appeal is submitted against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶34

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶35

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the appellant for making compliance of this judgment for depositing the fine amount before the trial Court within the stipulated time.

¶36

Let a copy of this judgment be also sent to the injured Zahir for receiving the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- as enhanced by this Court.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

Mohita /1

Ayub Khan S/O Sattar Khan Muslim, v. State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Khan S/O Sattar Khan Muslim, 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

Sattu @ Satyanarayan S/O Bholu Ram B/C Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pushpa Bai W/O Heera Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Avatar Singh S/O Sh. Swadarshan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Padam Data S/O Shri Ram Vilas Data B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mangal Ram Mahawar Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited