1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.311/1989 (Raja Ram alias Rajia Vs. The State of Rajasthan) S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.1989 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAISINGHNAGAR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.40/1987. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10th July, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. S.G. Ojha for the appellant. Mr. L.R. Upadhayaya, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th August, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby, the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous 2. imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The charge against the accused appellant was that he made two fires on the person of Patram on 4.1.86, when he was going for taking medicines to Raisinghnagar. One bullet was fired on the ribs of injured Patram and another was on his right hand. After usual investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He produced one Harbansh Singh DW-1 in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant as indicated above. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused appellant that during trial accused appellant remained in jail from 7.12.86 to 21.1.89 and thereafter for some time during pendency of this appeal, when his sentence was suspended. 3. According to him, the incident is of 22 years old and therefore accused appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned counsel appears to be just and reasonable. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused appellant passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by his judgment dated 8th August, 1989, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the order of fine shall remain intact. Accused appellant Raja Ram @ Rajia is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. If the accused appellant is not deposited the amount of fine within a period of one month, he will serve out the remaining part of the sentence. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. ms rathore