Bajrang Lal Sharma vs The State of Rajasthan

Accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 30th of June, 2014,

passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, ''learned trial Court''), whereby learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt

acquitted him for offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC and handed down sentence of ten years''

rigorous imprisonment.

In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Krishanlal submitted a report at Police Station Ghamurwali stating, inter-alia, that his daughter

Indra Devi, who was married with accused( appellant Bajrang alias Chimnaram five years back, was harassed by in-laws and was probably

hanged to death on 09.10.2010. It was alleged that the accused-appellant was demanding ring and had given threatening to his son also. The

complainant also averred in the complaint that before they reached to the spot or the police could reach, body of his daughter was taken down

from strangulation noose without congregating villagers. On the basis of said report, FIR No.140/2010 was registered for offence under Section

304-B, 498-A IPC.

After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Padampur from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity & Dowry Cases),

Sri Ganganagar and then transferred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, took cognizance and framed charge against accused-appellant

for offence under Section 302, in alternate 304-B IPC. On denial of charge, accused-appellant was put on trial.

In order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited twenty three documents.

Subsequently, statements of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in support of his case, exhibited six documents.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted appellant as aforesaid.

Against the judgment of learned trial Court, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304-B IPC and not under Section 302 IPC,

complainant Kishan Lal filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.650/2014 before this Court for modifying the judgment of trial Court but the said appeal

came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 02.09.2016. Similarly, Criminal Leave to Appeal No.215/2014, filed before the

Division Bench of this Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence under Section 304-B IPC and acquittal under Section 302, was

dismissed on 31.07.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the conviction of appellant but prays that keeping in view the fact that

appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence, i.e. more than eight years, out of ten years'' awarded to him, it would be

appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that, in totality of circumstances, sentence

awarded to the appellant be altered by reducing it to the extent he has already undergone. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following

judgments:

(1) State of Karnataka Vs. Dattaraj & Ors. [2016 Crl.L.J.1434].

(2) Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs. State of Haryana [(2015) 3 SCC 724]

(3) Manohar Lal Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 9 SCC 645].

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Public

Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence

and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accusedappellant as such no mercy can be shown even by reducing the

sentence imposed on the accused-appellant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the entire record.

Looking to the abondonment of challenge to indictment/conviction of accused-appellant by the learned counsel for appellant, the only question

which requires consideration is quantum of punishment. In this behalf, facts are admitted that appellant has already undergone sentence for

substantial period of more than eight years out of ten years'' imprisonment awarded. Therefore, taking into account the fact that appellant has

already suffered minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, i.e. 7 years, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence to him. The

judgments on which learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance are touching the merits of the case, therefore, it is not desirable to consider

these legal precedents.

There remains no quarrel that the appellant has already served the sentence of more than eight years, and therefore, in my considered opinion,

the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the extent of sentence already undergone by

him.

The criminal appeal, thus, deserves to be and is hereby accepted in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant, as recorded by learned

trial court for offence under Section 304-B IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant,

who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.