1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Kalu Ram. Versus State of Rajasthan. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.600/2007 ... Date of Order: August 10, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-6-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2007, whereby the Appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 IPC, reduced the sentence as under:- (1)For the offence under Section 341 IPC:- One month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three days' simple imprisonment. (2)For the offence under Section 323 IPC:- One month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further to 2 undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. (3)For the offence under Section 324 IPC:- Three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. (4)For the offence under Section 325 IPC:- Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Hence this criminal revision petition. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the conviction for the offences noticed above and confines his arguments only on the question of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that instead of keeping the petitioner in custody for the period, for which he has been sentenced by the Appellate Court, the period of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner and the petitioner is prepared to pay adequate amount of fine which may be paid as compensation to the injured persons. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view in awarding lesser sentence of imprisonment and looking to the number and nature of the injuries suffered by injured Kishan Lal and Smt. Jassu Bai, no further reduction in sentence of imprisonment is warranted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co- 3 accused Mohan, who has been convicted for the same offences, has been sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and has been released from the jail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the statements of injured persons, viz. PW 1 Smt. Jassu Bai and PW 2 Kishan Lal, who alleged to have suffered the injuries vide injury reports EX.P/1 and EX.P/3 respectively. Both these injured persons have suffered as many as eight to nine injuries each, though the injuries have been assigned to the petitioner and co-accused Mohan. The injuries also resulted in fractures of various parts of the body of PW 1 Smt. Jassu Bai and PW 2 Kishan Lal vide the reports of the Radiologist EX/P/19 and EX.P/2 respectively. Keeping in view the fact that co-accused Mohan has already been released for the sentence already undergone by him and the fact that the petitioner has suffered the imprisonment for one and about half months, in my view, the ends of justice would be met in reducing the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 324 and 325 IPC to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. one and twelve days. However, for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the fine is enhance to Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under Section 325 IPC, the fine is enhanced to 4 Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of these fine amounts, the petitioner to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court. Consequently, the revision petition filed by petitioner Kalu Ram S/o Jas Raj Jat against the conviction for the offences under Section 341, 323, 324 and 325 IPC is dismissed and his conviction is maintained for these offences. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, while enhancing the find for the offence under Section 324 IPC from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under Section 325 IPC from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Appellate Court. On depositing the fine amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid to injured Kishan Lal and a sum of Rs.20,000/- be paid to injured Smt. Jassu Bai. The petitioner is in the custody and he be released forthwith on depositing the amount of fine and if not required in any other case. Since the revision petition itself is decided, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Suspension of Sentence (Bail) Application No.139/2007 stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J. 5 mcs