Laxman Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant criminal jail appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Women atrocities Act Cases, Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 10/2009 whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part I, 309 IPC and sentenced as under :-

304 Part I IPC- Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.

309 IPC - One year S.I and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month S.I.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused appellant has already served total sentence of 11 years, 02 months and 20 days and presently, he is serving out the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine. The trial court had not mentioned the sentences to run concurrently, therefore, the appellant is presently undergoing the sentence for offence under Section 304 Part I and 309 IPC consecutively alongwith sentence in default of payment of fine as the appellant is a poor person and not in a position to pay the amount of fine. Therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be ordered to run concurrently and same may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the judgment passed by both the court below regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. As per the communication received from the office of Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur, the appellant has so far undergone a period of eleven years two months and 20 days in custody, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. The trial court had not mentioned the sentences to run concurrently, therefore, the appellant is presently undergoing the sentence for offence under Section 304 Part I and 309 IPC consecutively. Looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for substantial period now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 304 Part I and 309 IPC is ordered to run concurrently and reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the sentence of imposition of fine is concerned, the trial court has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment of three months and one months respectively, the default period of sentence has already been served by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section 304 Part I & 309 IPC, the sentences awarded to him is ordered to run concurrently and is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. Consequently, since the appellant has also served out the sentence awarded to him in default of payment of fine, he is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.