Shankar Lal And Ors vs State

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.”

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.142/1990 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:

For appellants No.1-Shankar Lal, 2. Gyana Ram & 3. Hanuman Ram:

Sections

Sentence

307/34 IPC

Five years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further three months’ R.I.

326/34 IPC

Five years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further three months’ R.I.

325/34 IPC

Two years.’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further two months’ R.I.

324/34 IPC

One year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further two months’ R.I.

323/34 IPC

Six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further 15 days’ R.I.

For appellant No.4-Mam Raj:

Sections

Sentence

307/34 IPC

Two years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further three months’ R.I.

326/34 IPC

Two years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further three months’ R.I.

325/34 IPC

Two years.’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further two months’ R.I.

After depositing the fine by the appellants Rs.1000/- be paid to the complainant (PW-1) Mallu Ram.

The dispute in question was a sudden altercation between the same set of family belonging to the same village due to the water sharing.

Learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the complainant jointly submit that the matter may be decided by reducing the sentence of the appellants already undergone by them.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that out of four accused-appellants, appellant No.4-Mam Raj S/o Hamira Ram has expired. The accused-appellant No.1-Shankar Lal, appellant No.2-Gyana Ram and appellant No.3-Hanuman Ram are surviving.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 10.04.1995 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.147/1995.

Learned counsel for the appellants however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

Haripada Das (Supra)

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal qua appellant No.4-Mam Raj is dismissed as having abated. However, the appeal qua appellant No.1-Shankar Lal, appellant No.2-Gyana Ram and appellant No.3-Hanuman Ram is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of appellant No.2 to 4 under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 325/34, 324/34 & 323/34 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellant No.1 to 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.