-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714/2007 (Inderjeet Singh Vs. State) S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.06.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK) NO.1, JODHPUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.152/2005. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01st April, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Surendra Singh for the appellant. Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : -2- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.152/2005, whereby, he convicted accused appellant Inderjeet Singh for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' imprisonment. The charge against the accused appellant was that on 16.08.2001, at about 9.30 p.m., accused threw acid on complainant Noorjahan and Smt. Shanti and caused simple and grevious injuries. The report of the incident was lodged by Noorjahan on 16.08.2001 with the averment that she and accused Inderjeet @ Raju and his wife are doing business of vegetables at sabjimandi, Paota. When they were returning to their house, accused met her in the way at Paota First Polo and threw acid at a distance of 4 to 5 steps. She was defaced. One Munna, taxiwala took her to the hospital. Upon this report, police registered a case for offence under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC and filed challan. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions for -3- trial, where the accused appellant was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused appellant has not argued the case on merit. He has simply stated that accused has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 326 IPC and the motive was only to his suspicion over his wife. Both the accused and the complainant are vegetable sellers. Accused appellant is already in custody for about two years and he has served out the maximum part of the sentence, therefore, he should be sentenced to the period already undergone. Having considered the peculiar circumstances of the case, contention of learned counsel for the accused appellant appears to be just and reasonable. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused appellant Inderjeet Singh @ Raju for offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the fine imposed is maintained. In addition to the -4- award of compensation, a sum in the tune of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid by the accused appellant to the injured within a period of thirty days from today. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. ms rathore