Chhitarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Chhitarlal vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 03, 1990

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757465

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757465
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: I.S. Israni, J.
Decided On: Jul 03, 1990
Case Number: S.B. Cri. Revi. Peti. No. 76 of 1990
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 326--Criminal Proceedings pending for 8 years--In prison far 15 months--Undergone tribulations for such long time--Held, sentence is reduced to already undergone and pay Rs. 100 1 to each J, Ki, C & Kh within I month.;The incident took place in the year, 1982 and the petitioner had already u...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chhitarlal

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Damodar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan
Reported In: 1990(2)WLN137

Excerpt

.....petitioner is in jail for 1-12 months.;i am inclined to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to already undergone with a further rider that be shall pay amount of rs. 100/- each to tulsiram, jagdish, kishan singh chaturbhuj & khuman singh within a period of 30 days.;revision partly allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 100/-was maintained in default of which, he will further undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment like that. 5. however, the learned counsel further prays that since the incident took place in the year, 1982 and the petitioner bad already undergone tribulations of trial for 8 years, so, the sentence awarded to him may be converted to the already undergone......and fine of rs. 100/-was maintained in default of which, he will further undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment like that.2. it is submitted by mr. jaswant singh, learned counsel that all other accused-persons were convicted under section 323, ipc and were give benefit of probation of offenders act. a fine of rs. 125/- was also imposed on each of the probationers, which was to be paid to tulsi ram, jagdish, kishan singh alias chaturbbuj & khuman singh.3. it is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the fir, it is mentioned that the petitioner was armed with lathi, whereas. p.w. 2 kishan singh & p.w. 5 khuman singh have stated in their statements that the petitioner was armed with gandasi and caused injury on little finger of the hand of chaturbbuj which resulted in fracture. it is submitted that dispute arose on account of some animals entering the field. it is also sub-milted that medical report shows that this is the only injury, which is said to be grievous, whereas, the injured chaturbbuj has not received any other serious injury. it is also submitted that all the accused persons had also giving beatings to the injured chaturbbuj with iathies. however, all other accused persons as stated above have been given benefit of the probation of offenders act.4. i have heard both the parties and also gone through the judgments of both the courts, merely, because in the fir, it was mentioned that the petitioner was armed with lathi, will not cause any shadow of doubt on the statements of p.w. 2 kishan singh & p.w. 5 khuman singh, who are said to be eye-witnesses. the medical report also supports the statements of these witnesses, inasmuch as incised wound has been caused to the injured chaturbhuj.5. however, the learned counsel further prays that since the incident took place in the year, 1982 and the petitioner bad already undergone tribulations of trial for 8 years, so, the sentence awarded to him may be converted to the already undergone......

Full Judgment

I.S. Israni, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated May 22, 1980 Oct. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Baran in Criminal Appeal No. 34/90 (135/87) whereby, be affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 Baran dated December 3, 1987, passed in criminal case No. 54/83, whereby, the sentence Under Section 326. IPC was reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to four months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-was maintained in default of which, he will further undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment like that.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned Counsel that all other accused-persons were convicted Under Section 323, IPC and were give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. A fine of Rs. 125/- was also imposed on each of the Probationers, which was to be paid to Tulsi Ram, Jagdish, Kishan Singh alias Chaturbbuj & Khuman Singh.

3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that in the FIR, it is mentioned that the petitioner was armed with lathi, whereas. P.W. 2 Kishan Singh & P.W. 5 Khuman Singh have stated in their statements that the petitioner was armed with Gandasi and caused injury on little finger of the hand of Chaturbbuj which resulted in fracture. It is submitted that dispute arose on account of some animals entering the field. It is also sub-milted that medical report shows that this is the only injury, which is said to be grievous, whereas, the injured Chaturbbuj has not received any other serious injury. It is also submitted that all the accused persons had also giving beatings to the injured Chaturbbuj with Iathies. However, all other accused persons as stated above have been given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

4. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the judgments of both the courts, Merely, because in the FIR, it was mentioned that the petitioner was armed with lathi, will not cause any shadow of doubt on the statements of P.W. 2 Kishan Singh & P.W. 5 Khuman Singh, who are said to be eye-witnesses. The medical report also supports the statements of these witnesses, inasmuch as incised wound has been caused to the injured Chaturbhuj.

5. However, the learned Counsel further prays that since the incident took place in the year, 1982 and the petitioner bad already undergone tribulations of trial for 8 years, so, the sentence awarded to him may be converted to the already undergone. The petitioner is in jail for 1-1/2 months. Reliance has been placed on Damodar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (14) RCC 105 in which the accused, who was convicted Under Section 326, IPC and had remained in coustody for one month and seventeen days, was sentenced to the term already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

6 Since the criminal proceedings have been pending for nearly eight years and the petitioner has already undergone the mental torture such a long time, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to already under gone with a further rider that he shall pay amount of Rs. 100/- each, to Tulsiram, Jagdish, Kishan Singh. Chaturbhuj & Khuman Singh within a period of 30 days. If the amount of Rs. 400/- is not deposited within the period mentioned above in the trial Court, the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the first appellate court.

7. The revision petition is partly allowed, as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1990 Same Parties Chhitarlal vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge I.S. Israni, J.

Criminal