Nanag Ram son of Shri Mam Raj vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Nanag Ram son of Shri Mam Raj and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1989, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1988
Decided On : 04-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Ran Singh, Mr. Mohit Balwada with Ms. Bhavana Choudhary, Mr. Sunil Shekhawat, Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat
For the Respondent: Mr. Imran Khan, P.P.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 148, 307, 149, 326, 324, 323, 452 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Criminal appeals - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - House-trespass - Criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby, while convicting appellants, they have been sentenced - Held, There is only one grievous injury suffered by each of two persons on their non-vital party of body, appellants have been facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 41 and a half years with no previous conviction, Court deems it just and proper to extend them benefit of Section 4 of Act of 1958 in backdrop of precedential law - While maintaining conviction of appellants, they are released on probation under Section 4 of Act of 1958 - Appellants shall file personal bonds in sum of Rs.50,000/-together with two sureties each of Rs.25,000/-for a period of two years to satisfaction to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 with a further stipulation that they shall appear and receive sentence when called upon during probation period and in meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour - Appeals are disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the four accused-appellants namely Nanag Ram, Mahavir, Shri Krishan @ Ram Kishan & Shri Kanti.

2. As per the report dated 16.08.2023 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, Nanag Ram & Shri Kanti have expired. The report is accompanied with a certificate dated 16.08.2023 furnished by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Shahjahanpur and death certificate dated 27.04.2022 of Kanti.

3. In view thereof, these appeals stand abated qua Nanag Ram & Shri Kanti and are, now, confined to the accused-appellants-Mahavir & Shri Krishan @ Ram Kishan (for brevity “the appellants”).

4. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.39/83 (28/82) whereby, while convicting the appellants, they have been sentenced as under:-

(i).	Under Section 148 IPC	1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default thereof, one month’s rigorous imprisonment.
(ii).	Under Sections 326 & 326/149 IPC	3 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; in default thereof, two months’ rigorous imprisonment.
(iii).	Under Sections 324 & 324/149 IPC	1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-; in default thereof, one month’s rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences to run concurrently.

5. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report (Exhibit-P-1) dated 15.04.1982 was lodged by Shri Rajendra Singh (PW-2) with the Police Station Shahjahanpur, Alwar stating therein that on that very day, at about 4:00 PM, when he was sitting in his residential house alongwith his father-Heeralal, mother & sister, the appellants alongwith co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered the house and inflicted grievous as also simple injuries on their person. Thereupon, an FIR No.22/82 (Exhibit-P-2) came to be lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 457 & 34 IPC. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused persons. Vide order dated 19.07.1982, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 148, 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 452 & 452/149 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After conducting trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.11.1988 as stated hereinabove.

6. Eschewing merits of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Mahavir and learned counsel for the appellant-Shri Krishan @ Ram Kishan, would submit that they, who are aged 70 years and 65 years respectively with no previous conviction, are facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 41 years and would feel contended if they are extended benefit of probation. They submit that in view of nature of grievous injuries received by injured-S/Shri Heeralal & Rajendra Singh on non-vital part of their body, i.e., right wrist and left wrist respectively, they may be extended benefit of probation. They, in support of their submissions, relied upon following judgments:-

1. Fulchand Gope & Anr. versus State of Jharkhand: (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 514,

2. Bhupendra Singh & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan: 2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1219.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. In the incident more than 41 years old, the injured-S/Shri Heeralal & Rajendra Singh have received grievous injuries on their wrist, i.e., non-vital part of the body. The appellants are aged about 70 years & 65 years respectively as on date with no previous conviction.

10. Their Lordships have held, in case of Fulchand Gope & Anr. (supra), as under:-

“4. The factual scenar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document