1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT State of Rajasthan vs. Kan Singh S.B. Criminal Appeal No.357/1989 u/s 377 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.06.89 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate 01st Class, Shivganj, in Cr.Case No. 232/1987. Date of Judgment : 02nd May, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr.O.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Mr.Doongar Singh for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Being aggrieved with the order of inadequate sentence, passed by the Judicial Magistrate , Shivganj , vide his judgment dated 29th of June 1989, whereby the accused respondent Kan Singh having found guilty 2 and convicted in the offence under section 379, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/-, 500/- and 1000/- respectively in each offence, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal, for the enhancement of punishment . Heard the arguments of Mr.O.P.Rathi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.Doongar Singh , advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused respondent and perused the impugned judgment and order of the lower court. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the offence under section 304 A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of 2 years, or a fine or both, but the trial court has inexplicably taken the most lenient view and punished the accused respondent only with a meagre amount of fine . Hence, the sentence awarded to the accused respondent should be enhanced in the interest of justice. 3 The learned counsel for the accused respondent has duly supported the judgment and order of the lower court and pressed upon that, it calls for no interference, after 22 years of the occurrence. From the perusal of the file it is found that the occurrence took place as early as on 30th of April, 1987. The accused Kan Singh was convicted and sentenced to a fine by the trial court on 29th of June, 1989. Since then this criminal appeal has been pending in the High Court. Thus the accused has already suffered constant trauma of trial for about 21 years. At the time of occurrence, the accused was about 25 years old and now he must have attained the age of 46 years. I am afraid that after 21 years of the occurrence, sending the accused respondent to jail shall serve the ends of justice . The duty is cast upon the Court to keep in mind all the variant factors, including the antecedents of accused. Nothing has been indeed brought to my notice, which may lead to feel that after the occurrence 4 of this case, or after the decision of this case by the trial court, accused has been found to have repeated the same nature of offence. Hence, I am of the view that after 21 years of the occurrence, it does not seem to be just and proper to enhance the sentence of the accused appellant and to send him to jail to serve out the sentence. Under the present facts and circumstances of this case, the State appeal is found to be devoid of any force and it deserves to be dismissed. In view of above, the State appeal is dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. l.george