IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Cr.Appeal.No.935/2003. Sahabala & Others Versus. State of Rajasthan. Date of Judgment: 21.5.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Ravi Shankar Sharma for the appellants. Mr.Pradeep Srimal P.P. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Session Case No.65/2003 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:- Accused Sahabala and Jaikam- For the offence under Section 326 IPC for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- ..2.. in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Accused Nihala- For the offence under Section 326/34IPC for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The brief facts of the case are that on 2nd January, 1997, complainant Rasheed Khan has got registered a FIR at Police Station Govindgarh stating therein that his brother Mumraj was going to Market from his house, suddenly the accused persons Nihala, Shahbla, Jaikam, Muunshi, Deena Chhaju and Khurshid Khan having lathies, Farshi and Gun surrounded him and Shahabla inflicted Farshi blow on his head, accused Nihala inflicted Lathi blow and thereafter accused Munshi and Jaikam inflicted Farshi blows on ..3.. his body and he sustained serious injuries. On hearing alarm the villagers came there and saved him. On the basis of aforesaid incident police registered a case FIR No.13/97 for the offence under Section 147,148,149, 323 and after investigation Section 307, 325, 326 IPC were added. Ultimately, the police submitted a charge sheet against accused appellants for the offence under Section 307, 326 325, 324, 323 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Addl.District & Sessions Judge Rajgarh (Camp at Laxmangarh). The Addl.District & Sessions Judge Rajgarh transferred the case to the court of Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, District Alwar who framed charges against the accused appellants under Section 307, 326 325, 324, 323 IPC. ..4.. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. The statement of accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above vide it's order dated 9.6.2003. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dated 9.6.2003, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. ..5.. In this appeal during the course of arguments, Mr.Ravi Shankar Sharma Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused appellants has made a request to this Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of trial court, but he is only requesting to this Court that the accused appellant Nihala has remained in judicial lockup for 97 days, Accused Sahabla has completed his sentence and released him on 2nd September 2005 as indicated by a letter written by Jail Superintendent to the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 16.12.2006 and accused Jaikam is involved in other case and he is in judicial lockup for the sentence of life imprisonment, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. For that purpose, he has relied upon a judgment delivered by Apex Court in Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J 2061. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- ..6.. “Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one ..7.. month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed.” He lastly prays to this Court that a lenient view should be taken in the light of the judgment referred to above. For the reasons mentioned above, I dismiss the appeal of accused Sahabla and accused Jaikam. Accused Nihala has remained in judicial lockup as indicated above, ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The accused appellant Nihala will pay the fine as awarded by the trial court. ..8. The appeal of accused Nihala is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Laxmangarh District Alwar is modified to the extent as indicated above. The accused Nihala is already on bail, his bail bonds need not be surrendered. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.