1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ... J U D G M E N T Mandata Singh @ Banti vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.Criminal Appeal No.920/2006 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.8.2006 passed by Shri Vishnu Dutta Sharma II RHJS, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.29/2005. Date of Judgment :::: March 5,2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr. Satish Pachori with Mr. Sunil K. Jain for accused-appellant. Mr. B.N.Sandu, P.P. By the Court:- Reportable: The accused appellant Mandata Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he has been convicted under Sections 307 and 427 IPC and he has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 307 IPC and to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- 2 and in default of the payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one month under Section 427 IPC. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that at 6.30 A.M. on 18.8.2004 one Dr. Narendra Roongta submitted a report (Ex.P.6) before S.H.O. Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur at the site of the occurrence that at about 6.00 A.M. on that day he heard a loud noise and before he could rise he heard another noise. He came out of his house and saw smoke all around and the back portion of his Maruti Van was completely damaged. Constables Pushpendra Singh, Hawa Singh and Sohan Lal who were deputed for his security were standing there. Smoke was also coming out from a nearby house D.669 Shiv Marg belonging to one Harish Gupta. He then saw a bomb like device of green colour near the main gate of his house which was round in shape like a `laddu'. He cried and cautioned the police constables. When the constable Pupshpendra Singh tried to remove the bomb like device it exploded and in consequence he suffered grievous injury on his leg. Neighbourers Sagar Chand Jain and Dr. S.R. Shukla who were standing nearby also suffered injuries. He, however, escaped unhurt as he was standing a little away. Many people of the colony came there hearing the noise. The neighbourer Dr. Anil Tambi told that two persons hurriedly boarded a Maruti 800 standing there and drove it fast. According to the report the persons behind this incident were Mandata Singh and his mother Siddh Kanwar and Mandata Singh had tried to kill him in the past also and that some other people might also be involved in the incident. After necessary investigation a challan was filed against the accused appellant, his mother Siddh Kanwar and two others, namely, Lalit Kumar and Yogesh Agarwal. Charges under 3 various sections of IPC and Explosive Substances Act,1908 were framed against the accused persons. The case of Lalit Kumar was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 3.1.2006. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses while one Meera Kanwar (DW.1) was examined in defence. Nand Lal Singh (P.W.15) stated that the bombs were thrown by the accused appellant Mandata Singh and the constable Sohan Lal (P.W.5) stated that when he saw the accused appellant Mandata Singh was running from the place of occurrence. After hearing arguments, the trial court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused Yogesh Agarwal and Siddh Kanwar of all the charges levelled against them but convicted the accused appellant under Sections 427 and 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused appellant has filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material and evidence available on the record. Learned counsel for the accused appellant does not challenge the conviction of the accused appellant under Sections 307 and 427 IPC and his only prayer is that looking to the injuries suffered by the injured Pushpendra Singh and the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused appellant, the sentence imposed upon the accused appellant be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the prayer. The injured Pushpendra Singh (PW.8) has suffered injuries on his legs and all the injuries are simple in 4 nature except the one sustained on the left big toe. There is thus no injury on any vital part. As regards the injuries allegedly caused to Sagar Chand Jain (P.W.10) and Dr. S.R.Shukla (P.W.11) there is no medical corroboration. The accused appellant has undergone imprisonment for about three years and six months. Looking to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused appellant and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries suffered by the injured Pushpendra Singh (P.W.8), I deem it fit to reduce the sentence of imprisonment passed against the accused appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused appellant under Sections 307 and 427 IPC is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment passed against him is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. If the accused appellant deposits the amount of fine then he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (G.S.Sarraf),J. bairwa