IN THE HHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Cr.Appeal.No.202/2005. Veer Singh Versus. State of Rajasthan. Date of Judgment: 21.5.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.S.S.Sunda for the appellant. Mr.Pradeep Srimal P.P. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 24th February 2005 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Jhunjhunu in Session Case No.(66/00, 81/01, 43/02) 02/04 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC for 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. ..2.. The brief facts of the case are that some civil cases are pending between the accused appellant and complainant party since long time. In this background on 10.9.1999, at about 2.P.M the complainant party tried to attack on accused party and in the attempt of saving themselves, the accused appellant made a fire due to which, injured Anand Singh sustained injury on his leg. On the basis of Parcha Bayan of Anand Singh aforesaid incident came to be registered by Sube Singh Head Constable, wherein he stated that when he was going to home from the well, the accused persons Veer Singh, Gopal Singh, Jeetu, Gajendra and two others who were standing on the roof of their house made fire which hit on his leg and his brother Pappuji took him in the jeep to the police station and from there to Hospital. On the basis of the ..3.. aforesaid parcha bayan, police registered a case a case FIR No.278/99 for the offence under Section 147,148, 149, 341, 323 & 307 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against accused Veer Singh, Gopal Singh and Rajender Singh for the offence under Section 341, 323, 326, 307IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Udaipurvati. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge,Jhunjhunu who transferred the case to the court of 2 which was again transferred to the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track)No.3 who while discharging other accused from the offences aforesaid, framed charges against the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant who ..4.. denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. The statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as thirteen 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 24.2.2005. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dated 24.2.2005, the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. In this appeal during the course of arguments, Mr.S.S.Sunda Advocate appearing ..5.. on behalf of the accused appellant has made 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 sentence should be reduced for the period already undergone by the appellant. For that purpose, he has relied a judgment of this Court in Devender Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007(3) R.C.C.900 which reads as under:- “Penal Code, 1850-Section 307- Sentence, when can be reduced- Appeal against conviction and sentence-cogent and valid reasons given for conviction by trial court-Conviction, upheld. Injuries on non-vital parts of the body-AIR 1980 SC 1758 followed wherein considering the nature of injuries, the sentence was reduced from 10 years to 7 years-As already noticed that injuries were on non- vital parts of the body, it is fit case to reduce the sentence- Sentence reduced from 7 years to 5 years R.I- Already remained in custody for over 5 years and appellant still is confinement, shall be set at liberty forthwith.” ..6.. Mr.Pradeep Srimal Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by Mr.S.S.Sunda. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also scanned the the judgment of the trial court and I find the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC. Reasons given by learned trial court are cogent and valid and I do not see any ground to differ from them. I therefore, maintain the conviction of appellant under Section 307 IPC. But so far as the sentence is concerned, I find that Anand Singh P.W.3 sustained injuries on non-vital part of his body i.e. Leg. The appellant was in judicial lock up from the period of more than 4 years, two months and 15 days. It is contended by Mr.Sunda that Anand Singh received injuries on the non- ..7.. vital part of the body, the sentence of the appellant be reduced. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Prabha Rashu Machhi Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1758 where the Apex Court considering the nature of injuries reduced the sentence from ten years to five years. In the instant case, as already noticed that the injured received injures on non-vital part of the body, I find it is a fit case to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant. I accordingly, allow this appeal in part and while upholding the conviction of appellant under Section 307 IPC, I reduce the sentence of appellant from ten years to 6 years. I further direct the concerned Jail authority to give the benefit of Section 432 Cr.PC in accordance with law. ..8.. The judgment and order dated 24.2.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu in Session Case No. (66/00,81/2001, 43/02 02/04) is modified to the extent as indicated above. This appeal is partly allowed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.