Partly allowed

Lal Chand v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLR/1061/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal under Section 307/34 IPC, finding no perversity in the trial court's reasoning regarding the nature of injuries. It partially allowed the connected criminal appeal by reducing the sentences of the accused-appellants to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction and imposing a fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed. Criminal appeal allowed; sentences reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; fine imposed to be deposited within one month.

Lal Chand Vs State and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49994]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1061/2006

¶4

Lal Chand s/o Sh. Chothu Ram r/o Dhani Meena ki Tan Singod Khurd P.S. Govindgarh District Jaipur

¶5

----Complainant/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Rameshwar s/o Hanuman r/o Dhani Meena ki Tan Singod Khurd P.S. Govindgarh District Jaipur.

¶9

Gidhari s/o Hanuman r/o Dhani Meena ki Tan Singod Khurd P.S. Govindgarh District Jaipur

¶10

Kalyan s/o Sudaram r/o Dhani Meena ki Tan Singod Khurd P.S. Govindgarh District Jaipur.

¶11

----Non Petitioners

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 632/2006

¶14

Rameshwar s/o Hanuman Sahay

¶15

Girdhari s/o Hanuman Sahay,

¶16

Kalyan s/o Sundaram, r/o Dhani Meena ki Tan Singod Khurd P.S. Govindgarh District Jaipur. ----Accused-Appellants

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Nikhil Saini for Mr. Inder Raj Saini in CRLR No.1061/2006, Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat in CRLA No.632/2006
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Devi Singh, PP, Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat in CRLR No.1061/2006

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶21

04/12/2024

¶22

These matters arise out of same incident, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. For convenience, facts are taken from criminal revision petition No.1061/2006.

[2024:RJ-JP:49994]

[CRLR-1061/2006]

(2 of 5)

These matters pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2005 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2006.

¶27

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1061/2006

¶28

This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 31.05.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu District Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.42/2005, whereby the petitioner have been acquitted from the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC.

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below wrongly acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 307 of IPC. The Court did not appreciate the fact that the injury caused to injured was on the vital part and injured remained hospitalized for 15 days. The Court also ignored the specific opinion given by the concerned medical jurists PW -1 who categorically opined that the injury caused to injured at head was dangerous to life. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents may be set aside.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 justifies the order passed by the Court below. It is contended that the learned Court below has observed that apart from the single injury at injured head, no other injury was caused to the injured at vital parts and thereafter rightly acquitted the respondents under Section 307 of IPC.

¶31

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶32

I do not find any perversity arrived at by the Court below. The Court has observed that apart from a single blow at the head

¶33

(3 of 5) [CRLR-1061/2006]

¶34

[2024:RJ-JP:49994]

¶35

of the injured, there are no other injury caused to the injured. The act was not repeated and thus acquitted the respondents, therefore, the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶36

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 632/2006

¶37

The present criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.05.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.42/2005, whereby, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶38

Under Section 341 of IPC:-

¶39

Five days simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/-.

¶40

Under Section 323/34 of IPC:-

¶41

Three months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of 15 days simple imprisonment.

¶42

Under Section 325/34 of IPC:-

¶43

Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of one month simple imprisonment.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was suspended by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2007, passed in the present case.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited submission that appellant No.1 Rameshwar already remained in custody for a period of 3 months 29 days, appellant No.2 Girdhari already remained in custody for a period of 6 days and appellant

¶46

(4 of 5) [CRLR-1061/2006]

¶47

[2024:RJ-JP:49994]

¶48

No.3 Kalyan already remained in custody for a period of 6 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

¶49

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶50

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶51

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶52

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

¶53

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶54

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

¶55

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 & 325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon them within a period of one month

[2024:RJ-JP:49994]

[CRLR-1061/2006]

(5 of 5)

in the trial Court from today. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶60

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶61

Keshav/11-12

Lal Chand v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Chand v. State and Ors.

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

Kundar @ Kundan S/O Bacchulal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sapat Khan S/O Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhura and Anor Vs State

Balla and Ors. Vs State

Saty Aveer Vs State