Partly allowed

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2024CRLA/510/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed pending criminal appeals partly. Convictions under Sections 341, 324, and 324/34 IPC were maintained. Appellants reduced to release as they had undergone sufficient imprisonment; Ramesh's fine increased, Bhanwar Lal's fine waived.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone for both appellants. Fine on Bhanwar Lal waived and deposieted to be returned. Fine on Ramesh increased to Rs.5,000; default leads to two months' imprisonm

Bhanwar Lal Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:49]

[CRLA-492/2015]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 492/2015

¶6

Ramesh S/o Kishan Lal Meghwal, R/o Mayangar Colony, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

¶7

(At present lodged in Sub-Jail Gulabpura, District Bhilwara)

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 510/2015

¶14

Bhanwar Lal S/o Nimba Ram Meghwal, R/o Mayangar Colony, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

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

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶21

Judgment

¶22

02/01/2024

¶23

Both the criminal appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 26.05.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Session Case No.06/2013 and therefore they are being decided by this common order.

¶24

By the judgment dated 26.05.2015, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-appellants for offence under Section 307

¶25

(2 of 5) [CRLA-492/2015]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JD:49]

¶27

IPC, but convicted and sentenced them for offence under Sections 341, 324, 324/34 IPC as under :

¶28

Both the Appellants : Offence U/s 341 IPC: One month’s S.I and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days’ additional imprisonment.

¶29

Appellant Ramesh : Offence U/s 324 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.

¶30

Appellant Bhanwar Lal : Offence U/s 324/34 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.

¶31

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2013, complainant Nar Singh submitted a written report (Ex-P/1) before the Police Station Gulabpura to the effect that on 02.02.2013 in the evening at about 7 PM, accused Ramesh called his son Naresh telephonically at his house. When his son Naresh reached at the house of accused Ramesh, he started beating his son while using abusive language. Accused Ramesh having knife in his hand, stabbed the complainant’s son in the stomach and other accused persons also started beating the complainant’s son Naresh. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused persons for offences under Sections 341, 324, 323 IPC and started investigation.

¶33

On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused persons including the appellants. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 307, 307/34, 341, 323 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

[2024:RJ-JD:49]

[CRLA-492/2015]

(3 of 5)

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, no witness was examined, but statement of Dinesh was exhibited as Ex-D/1.

¶38

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2015 acquitted the co-accused namely Sukhi Devi and Sita Devi and accused-appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

¶39

It is pertinent to note here that the State preferred a criminal leave to appeal being SB Cr. Leave to Appeal No.94/2016 before this Court against the acquittal of the accused persons including the present appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC, which was dismissed by this Court by way of a detailed order on 30.03.2017.

¶40

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2013 and the accused appellant Ramesh has so far suffered a sentence of about one and half years and appellant Bhanwar Lal has suffered a sentence of more than three months, out of total sentence of three years’ S.I. and further, no role whatsoever has been assigned to accusedappellant Bhanwarlal and Radiologist has also not been examined by the prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove x- ray report of the injured against the appellants, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the

[2024:RJ-JD:49]

[CRLA-492/2015]

(4 of 5)

aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2013 and the leave to appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 and further, the appellants have so far undergone a sufficient period of incarceration and have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 324, 324/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

¶48

Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 324, 324/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed upon the appellant Bhanwar Lal is hereby waived and if

¶49

[2024:RJ-JD:49] (5 of 5)

¶50

[CRLA-492/2015]

¶51

he has deposited the fine amount, the same may be returned to him forthwith.

¶52

The fine imposed upon the appellant Ramesh for offence under Section 324 IPC is hereby increased from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/and the fine imposed for offence under Section 341 IPC is hereby maintained. Appellant Ramesh is granted three months’ time to deposit the fine amount of Rs.5,100/- before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant Ramesh shall undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.

¶53

On depositing the fine amount by the appellant Ramesh, the same shall be disbursed to the injured Naresh S/o Nar Singh forthwith.

¶54

The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

¶55

Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.

¶56

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶57

55-MS/-

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chailu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyamlal Vs State

Yasin Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Vs State

Sandeep Gupta @ Sandy Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Harun Vs State of Rajasthan