SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2334

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Bhaira Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 344/1991
Decided On : 01-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
S.G. Ojha and A.K. Upadhyay, Advocates., for the Appellant
Laxman Solanki, PP., for the Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of sentencing principles, including deterrence and correction, in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant.

Headnote:

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES - Criminal Appeal - The court reduced the sentence of the appellant under Section 304 Pt. II IPC, considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, the manner in which the incident had taken place, and the fact that the appellant had already undergone a sentence of 10 months and 13 days. A fine of Rs. 50,000 was imposed upon the appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Pt. II IPC for an incident resulting in the death of Nathuram. The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence, arguing that the incident occurred in the heat of passion and that there was no intention to cause fatal injuries.

Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident had taken place, and the testimony of the witnesses, reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000.

Issues: The issues involved the appellant's intention during the incident, the nature of the injuries inflicted, and the appropriate sentencing in light of the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the sentencing principles of deterrence and correction, as well as the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances. The court also considered the precedent laws and the fact that the appellant had already undergone a significant portion of the sentence.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000. The fine amount was to be deposited before the trial court within three months and released to the complainant thereafter. The appellant was not required to surrender, and failure to deposit the fine would result in additional imprisonment.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of IPC against the impugned judgment dated 21.09.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 34/86. Vide judgment dated 21.09.1991, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section

Sentence

Section 304 Pt. II I.P.C.

7 years R.I. and Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default further 3 months R.I.

2. The present appeal arises out of the incident which happened on 25.03.1986 at Dera situated at Bypass Road, Suratgarh. An FIR was registered under Section 307, 323, 147, 149 & 382 of IPC against the appellant. In the incident, Nathuram sustained injuries and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident and therefore, Section 302 of IPC was also added. The charge-sheet in the case was filed and the trial court after undertaking the trial proceedings, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Against the order dated 21.09.1991 passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred in the heat of passion after a heated altercation between the appellant and deceased Nathuram. He further submits that there was no intention to cause fatal injuries by the appellant as there were no repetition of the blows. He submits that even the gandasi used in inflicting the injury was hit from the reverse side, which clearly shows that appellant had not intention to cause fatal injuries to deceased Nathuram.

4. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W. 3-Manaram & P.W. 4 Balaram, it has come on record that the gandasi was used by the petitioner for inflicting the injury on Nathuram from the reverse side and there were no repetition of blows.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, without joining the issues on merit, submits that the incident is of the year 1986 and after conviction more than 31 years have passed and the appellant Bhaira Ram has already undergone a sentence of 10 months and 13 days, therefore, he prays that taking into consideration the time lapsed after the incident, without making any interference on the merits/conviction passed by the learned trial court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be substituted to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and in alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellant, which may be directed to be released to the complainant Manaram, or his legal heirs.

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

    Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

      "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."

      Haripada Das (Supra)

      "...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..."

      8. This Court on conjoint reading of the facts and considering the manner in which the incident had taken place, on the spur of the moment without any intention to cause any fatal injury and the fact that the appellant-Bhaira

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top