Partly allowed

Ramsan @ Ramchandra S/O Naru v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2024CRLAD/252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Sections 395, 396 and 397 IPC in a robbery-murder case. The court, relying on parity with co-accused whose life sentence was reduced to ten years by a Division Bench, reduced the appellant's Section 396 IPC sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment and upheld the remaining sentences.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 396 IPC reduced from life imprisonment to ten years RI; fine and default sentence unchanged; sentences under Sections 395 & 397 IPC upheld.

Ramsan @ Ramchandra S/O Naru Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50890-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 252/2024

¶4

Ramsan @ Ramchandra S/o Naru, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kalyanpura District Jhabua Madhya Pradesh Presently Senior Vaniya Police Station Dahod Rural District Dahod Gujarat (Presently Confined in District Jail Baran)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Ajay Singh Yadhuvanshi with Ms. Poonam Yadav
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A.
		Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A.
		Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

11/12/2024

¶13

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment and sentence dated 29.06.2024, whereby, appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 395, 396 & 397 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Similar sentence has been awarded for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 396 of I.P.C., appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

¶14

[2024:RJ-JP:50890-DB]

¶15

[CRLAD-252/2024]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that an F.I.R. was lodged on 06.11.2008 for an incident which took place on 05.11.2008, wherein there was allegation that 10 to 12 unknown persons came to the shop of the complainant. Accused were armed with lathis revolver and stone pieces. They tried to snatch the bag containing money which was objected to upon which they fired. As a result of opening of fire, Brijraj, who is brother of the complainant, expired and complainant-Purushottam also sustained injuries.

¶18

It was mentioned in the F.I.R that the accused are unknown persons who looted an amount of Rs.4,55,200/- and carried away the bag which was containing the money. They were in the age group of 20 to 25 years. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that initially three persons namely Kegoo alias Keguda, Rasul & Mukka alias Mukesh were tried by the Sessions Court and were convicted by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2015. 4. In an appeal which was preferred by the convicted coaccused, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.78/2016 vide judgment dated 30.07.2018, partly allowed the appeal. The sentence for offences under Section 396 of I.P.C. was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years. The sentence for the other offences were upheld. It is further contended that the present appellant remained absconding and a separate trial took place and he was convicted vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2024 in Sessions case. As he was absconding after his arrest, he was tried and convicted vide judgment and sentence dated 29.06.2024. It is also contended by the learned

¶19

[2024:RJ-JP:50890-DB]

¶20

[CRLAD-252/2024]

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

counsel for the appellant that case of the appellant is akin to that of Keguda, Rasul & Mukesh, whose appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench on 30.07.2018 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.78/2016. It is also contended that the appellant has remained in custody for six years and eleven months. Prayer is made before this Court that on the ground of parity, the present appeal shall also be partly allowed.

¶23

Learned Additional Government Advocate has not disputed the factum of the decision in appeal by the Division Bench and the judgment dated 30.07.2018, whereby the appeal was partly allowed and sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years for offences under Section 396 of the I.P.C.

¶24

We have considered the contentions and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.78/2016. From perusal of the record it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and the role of the petitioner is akin to that of the co-accused who were convicted vide judgment dated 30.10.2015 and the appeal filed by them was partly allowed by the Division Bench.

¶25

In view of the fact that the case of appellant is akin to that of the co-accused whose appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench and without going into the merits of the case as the allegations against all the accused is same, we thus deem it proper to partly allowed the present appeal. The judgment and sentence dated 29.06.2024 is modified to the extent that for offences under Section 396 of I.P.C., the appellant is sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment in place of life imprisonment. The fine amount and the sentence which has to be undergone in

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CRLAD-252/2024]

¶28

[2024:RJ-JP:50890-DB]

¶29

default of payment of fine remains unaltered. As far as sentence for offences under Sections 395 & 397 of I.P.C. are concerned, the same is upheld.

¶30

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with the above modification in the sentence.

¶31

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶32

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶33

LAKSHYA-DAKSH/82

Ramsan @ Ramchandra S/O Naru v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsan @ Ramchandra S/O Naru v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt. Lalita W/O Shri Mahendra Singh Urf Monu D/O Shri Samunder Singh, Vs Mahendra Singh Alias Monu Son of Shri Durjan Singh

Jang Bahadur @ Maila Son of Shri Chandra Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal @ Shibbu Son of Girraj Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sulochana W/O Sh. Hanuman Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nafees @ Banti S/O Shri Abdul Hafeej Vs State of Rajasthan

Juvenile X Vs State of Rajasthan