Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Visarama - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 578 of 2017
Decided On : 22-08-2019
For the Appellant : R.S. Rathore
For the Respondent: Mukesh Trivedi, PP
In appropriate circumstances, a court may reduce a sentence considering the time served and the overall circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SENTENCING - SECTION 307, 324 IPC - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE - CONSIDERATION OF TIME SERVED AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for Section 307 IPC, and 2 years of RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for Section 324 IPC. The appellant had served 9 years, 6 months, and 22 days of the sentence for Section 307 IPC and had already served the sentence for Section 324 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had served a significant portion of the sentence for Section 307 IPC and had suffered the agony and trauma of a protracted trial. Considering these circumstances, the court held that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence for Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Issues: Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offense under Section 307 IPC could be reduced considering the time served and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that in certain circumstances, a sentence can be reduced considering the time served and the overall circumstances of the case. The court noted that the appellant had served a substantial portion of the sentence and had undergone the trauma of a protracted trial.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offenses under Sections 307 and 324 IPC but reducing the sentence for Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant. The fine amount of Rs. 10,000 was waived.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. Instant criminal jail appeal has been filed by the appellant through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur against the judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 307 & 324 IPC and sentenced as under:
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | In default |
| Sec. 307 IPC | 10 years R.I.
| Rs.5,000/-
| 1 year additional sentence |
| Sec. 324 IPC | 2 years R.I. | Rs.1,000/-
| 2 months additional sentence |
2. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10.08.2010 complainant-injured Madanlal (PW-2) had given his statement to the Police during treatment at Government Hospital, Pratapgarh to the effect that on 10.08.2010 when he was at his home, he heard some noise of quarrel near the school. The complainant-injured went there and saw that the accused-appellant along with other accused-persons was beating his uncle Lavji. When he tried to save his uncle, the accused-appellant inflicted stab wound with a knife on his abdomen, consequent to which the complainant-injured sustained severe injuries.
4. On the basis of the above statement, Police registered the case being FIR No. 94/2010 for offence under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC against the appellant and other accused-persons and started the investigation. Thereafter the accused-persons were arrested. After thorough investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused-appellant and other accused persons for offence under Sec. 307, 326, 324 & 34 IPC before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
5. Thereafter learned court below framed charge for offence under Sections 307 in alternative Section 326, 324 IPC against the accused-appellant and for offence under Section 307/34 in alternative Sections 326/34, 324/34 IPC against other accused persons. The accused-appellant and other accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence no witness was examined on behalf of the accused-persons but two documents were got exhibited.
7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 27.07.2012 acquitted the other accused-persons namely Babulal, Jiva and Bakshi for offence under Section 307/34 in alternative Sections 326/34, 324/34 IPC but convicted the accused- appellant for offence under Sections 307 & 324 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.
8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2010 and the accused appellant has served in custody a period of 9 years, 6 months & 22 days out of total sentence of ten years for offence under Section 307 IPC, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel further submits that for offence under Section 324 IPC, the appellant has already served the sentence.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
10. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the appellant's conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Sections 307 & 324 IPC is
