Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Kesra Ram vs State of Rajasthan

This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment

dated 04.02.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh

(hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Sessions Case

No.116/94, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC as

under :

Offence U./Sec.:- Sentence awarded:-

324 IPC :- 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month''s rigorous imprisonment.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that he is not challenging the findings of the trial court

regarding conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence,

however, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant by

the trial court for the aforesaid offence be reduced to the sentence

already undergone by him.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

incident, for which the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced, took place in the year 1992 and till now, around 25

years have been passed to that incident. It is contended that the

appellant and the complainant are the near relatives as the

complainant''s sister was married to the appellant. It is contended

that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and the

appellant had no intention to kill the complainant. It is contended

that the appellant remained in jail for around 110 days during the

pendency of trial as well as the present appeal and as such he has

already served out more than 3 months sentence out of the total

sentence of 1 year and at this stage, it is not in the interest of

justice as well as it will very harsh for the appellant to send him

back behind the bars.

Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that

the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be partly allowed and

the sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence

punishable under Section 324 IPC may kindly be reduced to the

sentence already undergone by him.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer

made on behalf of the appellant for reducing the sentence

awarded by the trial court and argued that the prosecution has

sufficiently proved his guilt before the trial court, the sentence

awarded by the trial court is not liable to be reduced.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

scrutinized the record.

Though, the learned counsel for the appellant is not

challenging the findings of the trial court of convicting the accused

appellant, however, this Court, in the interest of justice, has

scrutinized the record to find out whether the trial court was

justified in convicting the accused appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 324 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of an oral

statement of PW-3 Norang Lal, recorded on 05.07.1992, an FIR

was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town, District

Hanumangarh against the appellant for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 341 and 324 IPC. It is stated that PW-4

Vidhya Devi, daughter of complainant PW-3 Norang Lal, was

married to the accused appellant. It is alleged that the accused

appellant used to assault PW-4 Vidhya Devi and for this reason

PW-2 Mohan Lal, son of PW-3 Norang Lal and brother of PW-4

Vidhya Devi, went to his house on 26.06.1992 to console and

pacify him. It is alleged that when PW-2 Mohan Lal was talking

with the appellant, then suddenly the appellant inflicted injury by

a knife on his chest. Thereafter, the PW-2 Mohan Lal admitted in

the hospital and Panchayat was convened, however, the appellant

refused to compromise the matter, hence, this FIR is being filed.

As per the medical report, the injury received by the injured

PW-2 Mohan Lal was dangerous to life and, therefore, the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC was added and later on, the

police had filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

The trial court framed charge against the accused appellant

for the aforesaid offence.

To prove the charges against the accused appellant, the

prosecution had produced as many as 7 witnesses and got

exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused

appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no

evidence was produced in defence.

The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced

by the prosecution, has convicted the accused appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

Having carefully scrutinized the record of the case and

particularly the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, PW-2

Mohan Lal (injured), PW-3 Norang Lal and PW-4 Vidhya Devi, this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has sufficiently proved

that on 25.06.1992, the accused appellant inflicted a knife injury

on the chest of the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal and the said knife,

used by the appellant in inflicting injury on the injured PW-2

Mohan Lal, was recovered at his instance and the recovery of the

knife has also been proved by PW-5 Om Prakash.

This Court is also of the opinion that the trial court has

rightly observed that since, the appellant has inflicted one injury

on the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal, it cannot be said that the

appellant has assaulted the injured with the intention to kill him

and, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

So far as the sentence part is concerned, it is to be noticed

that the incident took place in the year 1992 and till now, around

25 years have been passed to that incident and the accused

appellant remained in jail for around 110 days during the

pendency of trial as well as the present appeal and as such he has

served out more than 3 months of sentence out of total sentence

of 1 years. It is also to be noticed that the appellant and the

complainant are the near relatives and the incident took place

during heated arguments between them and the appellant has

inflicted only one injury, though, under those circumstances, in

which the incident took place, he has opportunity to inflict more

injuries also.

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if

the sentences of imprisonment of the accused appellant awarded

by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC

are reduced from 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment to the sentence

already undergone by him.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While

maintaining the conviction of appellant - Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri

Kesra Ram @ Om Prakash recorded by the trial court for the

offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, his sentence is reduced

from 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment to the sentence already

undergone by him.

The impugned judgment dated 04.02.1995 passed by the

trial court is modified accordingly.