Samda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Garg, J

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.10.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Session Case No.31/1986 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

S.No.

Offence U/s

Sentence

Fine

Sentence in default of fine

1.

333 IPC

3 years’ RI

Rs.500/-

1 month’s RI

2.

353 IPC

2 months’ RI

-

-

3.

160 IPC

-

Rs.50/-

15 days’ SI

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.1986, complainant-Injured Narain Lal, Head Constable, gave a parchabayan at Banger Hospital, Pali to SHO, PS Pali to the effect that when he along with other police personnel was performing duty in a fair at Manpura, the accused-appellant inflicted knife injuries to him. On the basis of the said parchabayan, Police registered a case and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 160, 307, 333 & 353 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

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 1986 and the accused appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about one year & seven months, out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

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 appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

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.

Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1986 and the appellant has so far undergone a period of about one year & seven months incarceration, out of total sentence of three 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 period, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 333, 353 & 160 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 333, 353 & 160 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby waived. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.