Partly allowed

Kumher v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2024CRLR/114/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur partly allowed a criminal revision petition. It reduced the petitioner's sentence for the non-compoundable offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the period already undergone, enhanced the fine, increased bail bonds, and discharged his existing bail.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for grievous hurt reduced to time undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000; bail modified and enhanced; earlier bail discharged.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/2004

¶3

Kumher son of Kalla, resident of Village Ghusai, Police Satation Karanpur, Tehsil Sapotra, District karauli (Rajashtan).

¶4

(Presently confined in District Jail at Karauli).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

03/04/2024

¶13

1 The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Session Judge, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.27/2002 by which the Appellate Court while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal upheld the judgment dated 11.02.2002 passed in Criminal Case No.157/1999 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, District Karauli whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 326 and 447 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and six months SI, respectively. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶14

[CRLR-114/2004]

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.1999 the

¶17

complainant injured Babulal lodged a written report with Police Station Karanpur, District Karauli alleging therein that his neighbour Kumher (petitioner) tried to climb on the ‘patwar’ of his house, due to which, quarell took place between them. Thereafter, the accused came at his house and knocked the doors and assaulted him by inflicting an injury on his head by axe.

¶18

Upon this report, crime No.60/99 was registered for the offences under Section 324 and 447 IPC. After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet against the peitioner for the offences under Sections 447 and 326 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial Judge against the petitioner for the above offences where the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents in support of his case. Thereafter, the statements of the accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, statements of DW-1 Lakhan Bai were recorded and cross FIR No.61/1999 and the chargesheet submitted therein was exhibited.

¶19

Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2002 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences stated above. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner

¶20

[CRLR-114/2004]

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

preferred appeal before the Appellate Court which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.01.2004.

¶23

It is worthy to mention here that during pendency of the appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, the injured complainant entered into compromise with the petitioner and submitted an application for acquitting the petitioner from all the charges. The learned Appellate Court accepted the compromise to the extent of Section 447 IPC as the same is compoundable. Prayer for compounding the offence under Section 326 IPC was declined as the said offence was not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The judgment passed by the trial Court was upheld. Hence, this petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner.

¶24

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of convication since the occurrence relates to year 1999 and after conviction of the petitioner at the stage of appeal, the injured complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and submitted an application for his acquittal for both offences. Counsel submits that out of the total sentence of three years the petitioner has already undergone considerable sentence by remaining behind bars. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid

¶25

[CRLR-114/2004]

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

offences be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

On the other hand, Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence and the judgment passed by the Courts below regarding conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

¶30

This fact is not in dispute that the incident occurred way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already undergone sufficient sentence while remaining behind bars. This facts is not in dispute that during pendency of the appeal, the injured has submitted a compromise for compounding the both offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has already suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial, this Court deem it just and proper that the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and affirmed by the Appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner while enhancing the amount of fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

¶31

(5 of 5) [CRLR-114/2004]

¶32

Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed while maintaining petitioner’s conviction for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶33

The fine increased by this Court be deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court within a period of two months from today. On deposition of the said fine, the amount of fine be disbursed to the injured. In default of deposition of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶34

Since, the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

¶35

The record of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court be sent back forthwith.

¶36

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of six weeks form today, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of Leave to Petition is submitted against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioner on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

KuD/3

Kumher v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumher v. State

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

The Income Tax Officer Vs Rajendra Prasad Vaish, S/O Shri Banshidhar Vaish

Vijay Chaturvedi S/O Late Shri V.D. Chaturvedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mubin S/O Chahat Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Murari Vs State and Ors.

Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nanhey Khaa Vs State