Jiyaram vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 22.06.1998 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.4/1997 by which the appellate

court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 19.04.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial

Magistrate, Bilara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.69/1995 whereby, the learned trial court convicted and

sentenced the present petitioners as under :

Petitioner No.1-Jiyaram

Offence U/s 341 IPC : One month’s S.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days’ S.I.

Offence U/s 323 IPC : Six months’ S.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 30 days’ S.I.

Offence U/s 326/34 IPC : Two years’ R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months’ S.I.

Petitioner No.2-Gorakhram @ Gordhan

Offence U/s 341 IPC : One month’s S.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days’ S.I.

Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months’ S.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 30 days’ S.I.

Offence U/s 326 IPC : Two years’ R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months’ S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.1994 a written report was submitted by the complainant Polaram to the Police to the effect that in the

evening at about 6 PM when he was returning from his agriculture field along with his cattle, during the way he met with the accused-petitioners and

made complaint to them about the spoilage made by their cattle. On such complaint, the accused-petitioner became annoyed and angry and started

beating with the complainant, consequent to which the complainant sustained grievous injuries on his body. On raising hue and cry by the complainant,

other persons came their and saved the complainant from the accused-petitioners.

On this complaint, the police registered the case against the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and started investigation.

After investigation, the police filed challan against the present accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 326/34 IPC. Thereafter, the

charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioner No.1 for offence under Sections 341, 326, 324/34 IPC and accused-petitioner No.2

for offence under Sections 341, 323, 326/34 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused-

petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.1997 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for

offences as mentioned earlier.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.04.1997, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court,

which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.06.1998. Hence this revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioners.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates

back to year 1994 and they have so far suffered a sentence of about one month eleven days out of total sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed

that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC may be reduced to the period

already undergone by them.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP

submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is

called for in the said case.

Since the petitioners’ counsel does not challenge the petitioners’ conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly,

the conviction of the accused-petitioners as recorded by the learned courts below for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC is maintained.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-

petitioners.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of one month and

eleven days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all

circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence

awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 326 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already

undergone by them while increasing the amount of fine.

Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323

& 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.200/-

imposed for offence u/S 341 IPC and Rs.500/- imposed for offence u/S 323 IPC is hereby maintained, however the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/-

imposed for offence u/S 326 IPC is increased to Rs.2,000/-, in total each of the accused-petitioners is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- as fine. Two

month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months simple

imprisonment. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.