1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Mohar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Raj. (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.164/1986) S.B.Crimnal Appeal under Sec.374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.3.1986 in Session Case No.27/84, by Shri Ramchandra, RJHS, Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar. DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 5, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. RN Khandeal with] Mr. Lokesh Parihar ]for the appellants. Mr. BK Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 27th March, 1986, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar convicted the accused appellant Mohar Singh in the offence under Section 326 of IPC and the accused appellant Ramswaroop in the offences under Section 326 and 324 of IPC and sentenced as under. Mohar Singh U/S 326 of IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2 Ramswaroop U/S 326 of IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. U/S 324 of IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.300/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The nub of the appellants story is that on 4th June, 1984 PW/1 Ramesh Chand and PW/5 Jhabbu Ram having loaded their grains on the bullock-cart of Ramphool, were coming on their bicycles from Kanchanpura to Kherli to sell the said grains. It is alleged that the accused persons Devpal, Mohar Singh, Ramswaroop, Jal Singh, Kanhaiya Lal and others were coming on a tractor. When they reached near the complainant, it is alleged that Ramswaroop, Devpal caught hold of Ramesh, made him lie on the ground and the accused Mohar Singh who was armed with Dharia attacked upon him. It is further alleged that the accused Ramswaroop assaulted with Pharsi upon his right leg, Mohar Singh on his left leg and thus caused injuries. Shri Rajendra Prasad, ASI, Kherli recorded the Parchabayan Ex.P/5 of Jhabbu Ram where upon FIR Ex.P/21 was lodged and investigation commenced. 3. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., got both the injured namely Ramesh 3 Chand and Jhabbu Ram medically examined, prepared site plan Ex.P/3, seized the control soil and blood smeared soil vide memo Ex.P/5, arrested the accused Handu vide memo Ex.P/12, Hari vide memo Ex.P/13, Devpal vide memo Ex.P/14, Mohar Singh vide memo Ex.P/15, Ramswaroop vide memo Ex.P/16 and recovered the subject of offence viz Dharia vide memo Ex.P/18, Pharsi vide memo Ex.P/19, one another Dharia vide memo Ex.P/10, Tanchiya vide memo Ex.P/11 at their instance, drew the necessary memos and after usual investigation sent the accused persons namely Devpal, Mohar Singh, Ramswaroop, Handu and Hari for trial to the competent Court. 4. The accused persons namely, Devpal, Ramswaroop, Handu, Hari and Mohar Singh were indicted for the offences under Section 147, 307, in alternate 307 read with Section 149, 326, in alternate 326 read with Section 149, 324, in alternate 324 read with Section 149, 323, in alternate 323 read with Section 149 of IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the accused persons claimed innocence and pleaded that they have been implicated in this case. On completion of trial, the Court acquitted Devpal, Hari and Handu of all the charges and convicted the accused appellants Mohar Singh and Ramswaroop as indicated hereinabove. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants, 4 learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and with their assistance scanned the material available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has not questioned the conviction of both the accused appellants Mohar Singh and Ramswaroop and has straightway focused his arguments on the quantum of sentence and has canvassed that the occurrence of this case took place as far back on 4th June, 1984 and the appellants have been facing the trauma of criminal proceedings for the last 24 years. He has further submitted that injured Ramesh undeniably sustained only one grievous injury caused by sharp edged weapon none of the injuries found on the person of Ramesh Chand was on any vital part of his body. So far as the injuries of Jhabbu Ram are concerned only one injury is found to have been caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the two injuries are simple and superficial in nature. Both the accused appellants have been in confinement for about 15 days during the pendency of trial and appeal, hence keeping in view the fact that the accused have been facing the trauma of criminal proceedings for the last 24 years and they have not been found to be involved in any criminal activity thereafter, the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to period already undergone during trial and appeal. He has cited a case of Naib Singh Vs. State of Panjab reported in AIR 1986, SC 2192, in support thereof wherein the accused appellants' sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.5,000/-. 5 7. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants and has contended that the injured Ramesh Chand was caused seven injuries by the appellants out of which five injuries were caused by the sharp edged weapon. Injury No.4 has been found to be grievous in nature. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained by Ramesh Chand, the sentences awarded by the trial Court to the accused appellants should be maintained. However, he has further submitted that in case the sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial Court is reduced then the amount of compensation ordered by the trial Court should be enhanced adequately. 8. Having reflected over the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the judgment of Naib Singh (Supra) it is found that in the case of Naib Singh, the accused appellant was, of course, a school teacher and had been facing the trauma of criminal proceedings for the last 13 years. He was sentenced to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment by the trial Court which in the interest of justice was reduced by the Hon'ble Apex Court to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the instant appeal, the occurrence took place as far back as on 4th June, 1984 and the appellants were convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated 27th March, 1986. Thus, undeniably the accused appellants have been facing the tiring trauma of trial and criminal proceedings for the last 24 years. The material available on record reveals that both the appellants remained in 6 custody with effect from 18th June, 1984 to 25th June, 1984 during trial and with effect from 27th March, 1986 to 3rd April, 1986 in confinement during the pendency of appeal. Vide injury report Ex.P/1, seven injuries were found on the person of Ramesh Chand out of which five injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Only one injury No.4 which was caused on the left ankle dorsum of foot was found to be grievous in nature. The injury on the left occipital region was of course caused by the sharp edged weapon but on medical examination it was found to be simple. Thus, there is no injury which may be said to have been caused on the vital part of the injured and found grievous in nature. So far as the injuries of Jhabbu Ram are concerned, only one injury on his left knee has been found to be grievous in nature but rest of the two injuries were simple. Both the accused appellants have not been found to be involved in any other criminal activity thereafter. Further the material available on record also does not depict that the antecedents, of the appellants have any blemish. Hence, keeping in view all these factors and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I feel inclined to take a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence and the ends of justice would be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to a period already undergone in confinement. 9. For these reasons, the criminal appeal filed by both the appellants Mohar Singh and Ramswaroop is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants Mohar Singh in the offence under Section 326 of IPC and the 7 appellant Ramswaroop in the offences under Section 326 and 324 of IPC are maintained but the punishment awarded to both the appellants is reduced to a period already undergone in confinement and the sentence of fine imposed on both the appellants vide the impugned judgment is maintained. 10. As has already been indicated above that the injured Ramesh Chand sustained seven injuries out of which five injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and one incised wound on his left ankle and dorsum of foot was found to be grievous in nature. Similarly, Jhabbu Ram also sustained incised wound on left knee and that was also found to be grievous in nature, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment directed the appellants to pay compensation amount of Rs.1300/- to injured Ramesh and Rs.500/- to injured Jhabbu Ram. Looking to the number and nature of injuries as narrated above, I am sanguine that the ends of justice would be served if the amount of compensation directed to be paid to both the injured Ramesh Chand and Jhabbu Ram is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) and Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand) respectively. 11. The impugned judgment stands modified as indicated hereinabove. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. PCG