Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Roop Ji @ Roop Singh, S/o. Shri Maneng & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1992
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 452, 307/149, 323 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 374(2) – Punishment for rioting – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon – Attempt to murder – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Power to examine accused – Appeals from convictions – Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case, whereby trial Court has convicted and sentenced appellants – Held, Court finds that nature of injury creates a doubt as to whether there was any intention of causing death, or causing attempt to murder – Therefore, conviction recorded by trial court for offence under Section 307/149 IPC cannot be sustained but conviction of appellants as recorded by learned trial court for other offences is maintained – So far as sentence part is concerned, a sentence should neither be too lenient nor disproportionately severe – Former looses its deterrent effect and latter has a tendency to tempt offenders to commit a more serious offence – It is duty of court to impose a proper punishment depending upon degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders – Punishment to be proper, effective and purposeful must fit not only crime but also criminal – Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 132/1989, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
| S. No. | Name of accused | Offence | Punishment |
| 1. | Roop ji | 148 IPC | Two years’ rigorous imprisonment |
|
|
| 147 IPC | One Year’s rigorous imprisonment |
| 452 IPC | Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone one month’s R.I | ||
| 307/149 IPC | Four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone two month’s R.I | ||
| 323/149 IPC | Six months rigorous imprisonment | ||
| 2. | Arjun Singh | 147 IPC | One year’s rigorous imprisonment |
|
|
| 452 IPC | Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone one month’s R.I |
| 307/149 IPC | Four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone two month’s R.I | ||
| 323/149 IPC | Six months rigorous imprisonment | ||
| 3. | Deveng | 147 IPC | One year’s rigorous imprisonment |
|
|
| 307/149 IPC | Four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone two month’s R.I |
| 323/149 IPC | Six months rigorous imprisonment | ||
| 4. | Jagji | 147 IPC | One year’s rigorous imprisonment |
|
|
| 307/149 IPC | Four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone two month’s R.I |
| 323/149 IPC | Six months rigorous imprisonment |
2. The concise facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by complainant Chandmal, Sarpanch, Badodia on 10.08.1989 stating therein that in the night at about 10 PM, Keshrimal was sleeping in his house. At that time, accused Roopji alongwith other 7-8 persons forcibly entered into the house and assaulted him. Thereafter, they dragged him to the hotel of Kiran Singh where he was further beaten by accused persons by lathis, iron rod etc. When his younger brother Ramesh and Mani lal intervened, he was also beaten. It was alleged that a day before, accused Roopji had damaged small part of platform of the house of Rameshchand and Keshrimal was demanding compensation from him.
3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 442/1989 was registered about commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307/149, 323/149 IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against nine accused-persons. The case was transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Banswara where the charges of the case were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.
5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated 09.12.1992 convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinabove.
6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the prosecution story is exaggerated and does not find corroboration from medical evidence. As per injury report of both injured namely Keshrimal and Ramesh chand, the injuries were found to be simple in nature. The doctor who examined the injured has categorically stated that none of the injuries were dangerous t
The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of injuries, the degree of criminality, and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the death of the deceased, and the application of relevant case laws to ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mens rea for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the interpretation of the nature of the injury in determining the ap....
The central legal point established is the reliance on consistent and credible testimony, medical opinion, and socio-economic factors in determining the guilt and sentencing of the appellants.
The main legal point established is the court's wide amplitude of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowing it to quash criminal proceedings beyond the statutory framework, considering t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
