Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Roop Ji & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 433/1992
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 147, 148, 452, 307/149, 323/149 IPC - The court maintained the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323/149 IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC. The sentence awarded to the appellants was reduced to the period already undergone by them, and the amount of fine was enhanced. The appellants were granted three months' time to deposit the fine before the trial court. If the appellants failed to make the payment of fine as ordered by the Court, they would be arrested to serve out the remaining sentence for the other offences.
Fact of the Case:
A First Information Report was lodged stating that the accused forcibly entered a house, assaulted the victim, and dragged him to a hotel where he was further beaten. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, and they appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the injuries did not support the charge under Section 307/149 IPC, but maintained the conviction for other offences. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants and enhanced the amount of fine, granting them three months' time to deposit the fine.
Issues: The issues included the severity of the injuries, the credibility of the prosecution evidence, and the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the mitigating factors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injuries, the degree of criminality, and the mitigating factors such as the appellants' time spent in custody and their clean record before and after the incident.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC, maintaining the conviction and sentence for other offences, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants, and enhancing the amount of fine.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - 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. | Roopji | 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 | 147IPC | 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 along with 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 to life and they were simple in nature, therefore, no case u/s. 307 I.P.C. was made out and the offence, if any, does not travel beyond section 323 I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court, on the same set of evidences, has disbelieved the witnesses in respect of the charges level
The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of injuries, the degree of criminality, and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction.
The nature of injury is immaterial, and what is relevant is the nature of the weapon used to inflict the injury. Imposing appropriate sentences to protect society and deter criminals is crucial.
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
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
