HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
PARTHU @ PRITHVIRAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 1861 / 2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part-II - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted for causing death due to a quarrel over a money dispute, sentenced to 7 years’ R.I. and fined Rs.5,000/- - Appeal partly allowed, sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 1, 7, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Statement of accused recorded - The trial court's conviction upheld, but sentence modified based on time served. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in a quarrel with the complainant's brother, resulting in the latter's death after being struck with a lath. The incident occurred on 22.02.2020, leading to charges under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the appellant's five years of incarceration and the mental trauma endured during the trial, deeming it just to reduce the sentence to the time already served. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentence should be reduced given the time already served by the appellant. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence based on the appellant's time served and the circumstances surrounding the case, while upholding the conviction. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Appeal partly allowed; sentence reduced to period already undergone.
JUDGMENT :
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No.15/2020 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II and sentenced him to under 7 years’ R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo five months’ S.I.
2. The period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2020, complainant Mukesh Chandra submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Nimbahera alleging that today at about 6 PM, his brother Amritram was consuming liquor with the present petitioner and his father Kaluram. When complainant went to call Amritram, he saw that the present petitioner and his father were quarreling with his brother over money dispute and thereafter, both the accused hit Amritram with a lath due to which he fell down and later on died on his way to the hospital. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 120-B of IPC and started investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302 & 120-B of IPC , who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC . Hence, this criminal appeal.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2020 and the accused appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about 5 years, out of total sentence of seven years’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor 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.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.
10. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2020 and, the appellant has so far undergone a period of about five years incarceration, out of total sentence of seven years’ R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The accused-appellant is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
12. Pending applications, if any, stands decided.
13. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC but reduced the sentence to the time already served, considering the appellant's incarceration and circumstances of the case.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction.
The court can reduce a sentence to the period already undergone when considering the circumstances of the case and the mental trauma experienced by the appellants.
The court may reduce a sentence based on compromise and time served while maintaining the conviction in criminal cases.
The court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone considering the lengthy pendency of the case and the age of the appellant.
The court has the discretion to consider the appellant's time already spent in incarceration and the overall circumstances to modify the sentence while maintaining the conviction.
The court can reduce the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the mental trauma of a protracted trial.
The court upheld the conviction under S.304 Part II IPC, affirming the appropriateness of the sentence reduction based on the nature of the crime.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already spent by the accused-petitioner in incarceration and trial when deciding on the reduction of the sentence for the offences.
The court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone considering the time served and circumstances of the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.