Fatta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Fatta Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 08, 1990

~7 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757574

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/757574
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Aug 08, 1990
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 1980
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 324 & 326--Sentence--Incidence 12-1/2 years old--Incident over quarrel between children--Daughters of marriageable--Circumstances--Held, in view of special circumstances sentence is reduced to already undergone and fine is enhanced.;Ther are some special circumstances, specially the fact tha...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fatta Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Naib Singh v. State of Punjab
Reported In: 1990(2)WLN143

Excerpt

.....did not want that jasbir singh should have approached him for the vote as he had quarreled with his elder father previously. at the time of the incident the age of the appellant was 28 years and now he is more than 40 years. in his statement under section 313, cr.pc he has given out that he was having three daughters and one son and all of them below seven years of age at that time. those daughters must have now grown up and they might be of marriageable. thus taxing all the facts and circumstances of the case i am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.;appeal 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. - 4. i have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned public prosecution. the learned counsel for the appellant, after making submissions on the..........the appellant as aforesaid.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned public prosecution.5. in this case the injured jasbir singh has been examined as p.w. 6 and also other four eyewitnesses, namely, p.w. 3 gurutej singh, p.w. 4 harnek singh, p.w. 7 pritam singh bhati and p.w. 8 hari ram. pw 3 gurutej singh and p.w. 4 harnek singh did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. the learned trial court after placing reliance on the testimony of the injured jasbir singh and the two eyewitnesses, namely, p.w. 7 pritam singh bhati and p.w. 8 hari ram convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. the learned counsel for the appellant, after making submissions on the merits of the case for some time, conceded that the conviction of the appellant under sections 326 and 324 as recorded by the learned trial court, is well founded. i myself have also gone through the statements of the injured jasbir singh and two eyewitnesses, namely, p.w. 7 pritam singh bhati and p.w. 8 hari ram and i am fully convinced that the appellant is the author of the two injuries sustained by jasbir singh and the conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded.6. the main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the question of sentence. his contention is that the incident is dated 17th jan. 1978 and more than 12-1/2 years have passed since then. it was further contended that the incident took place all of a sudden on a petty matter as the injured jasbir singh had gone to the appellant to seek his vote in the panchayat election. it was further contended that the appellant had already remained in jail for about three weeks and it shall not be in the interest of justice to send the appellant in jail after such a long period. he further contended that in lieu of the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment the injured may be compensated, though it was further argued that the appellant is a poor gardner. the learned.....

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. The accused-appellant Fatta Ram was convicted Under Section 326 and 324 IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in sessions case No. 26/79 and was sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- respectively. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentences the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that on 17-1-1978, the injured Jasbir Singh accompanied with Pritam Singh Bhati and other person went to the village 4B in district Sri Ganganagar. They had gone to converse for the candidature of Pritam Singh Bhatti who was contesting the Panchayat election. It is alleged that Fatta Ram was also approached by them for his vote but he refused to oblige saying that Jasbir Singh had come to ask for the vote and they was having enmity with him Other persons were also present at that time and it is further alleged that the accused-appellant also abuses but be was pacified by other persons. On the same day at 5.30 P.M. when injured Jasbir Singh was sitting in the village chowk along with other persons, then the appellant Fatta Ram is said to have come with a spade and inflicted a blow on the bead of Jasbir Singh. The second blow was given on the hand. Jasbir Singh was brought to hospital at Kesrisinghpur and the Medical Officer sent an intimation to the SHO, Police Station, Kesrisinghpur at 7.15 P.M. on the same day. On the said information, the SHO Shri Balwant Rao came to the hospital and recorded the statement on Jasbir Singh injured. On the basis of the 'Parcha.Bayan' of Jasbir Singh a case was registered Under Section 307 IPC.

3. After usual investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and thereafter he was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 30, IPC in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned trial court, after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecution.

5. In this case the injured Jasbir Singh has been examined as P.W. 6 and also other four eyewitnesses, namely, P.W. 3 Gurutej Singh, P.W. 4 Harnek Singh, P.W. 7 Pritam Singh Bhati and P.W. 8 Hari Ram. PW 3 Gurutej Singh and P.W. 4 Harnek Singh did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. The learned trial court after placing reliance on the testimony of the injured Jasbir Singh and the two eyewitnesses, namely, P.W. 7 Pritam Singh Bhati and P.W. 8 Hari Ram convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The learned Counsel for the appellant, after making submissions on the merits of the case for some time, conceded that the conviction of the appellant Under Sections 326 and 324 as recorded by the learned trial court, is well founded. I myself have also gone through the statements of the injured Jasbir Singh and two eyewitnesses, namely, P.W. 7 Pritam Singh Bhati and P.W. 8 Hari Ram and I am fully convinced that the appellant is the author of the two injuries sustained by Jasbir Singh and the conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded.

6. The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the appellant is on the question of sentence. His contention is that the incident is dated 17th Jan. 1978 and more than 12-1/2 years have passed since then. It was further contended that the incident took place all of a sudden on a petty matter as the injured Jasbir Singh had gone to the appellant to seek his vote in the Panchayat election. It was further contended that the appellant had already remained in jail for about three weeks and it shall not be in the interest of justice to send the appellant in jail after such a long period. He further contended that in lieu of the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment the injured may be compensated, though it was further argued that the appellant is a poor Gardner. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred Damodar Prasad v. State of Raj. 1989 RCC 105, Khatanmal v. State of Rajasthan 1989 RCC 219 and Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1985 WLN (UC) 497.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, supported the judgment of the learned trial court.

8. I have given my careful consideration on the question of sentence. It is not doubt true that the appellant had inflicted two injuries on the person of injured Jasbir Singh out of which one injury was found to be grievous. But there are some special circumstances, specially the fact that the incident had taken place on 17-1-1978 and about 12 1/2 years have parsed since then. Father the incident took place all of a sudden and that too on a petty matter when the injured had gone to the appellant to seek his vote for the Candidature of Pritam Singh Bhati. It appears that the appellant did not went that Jasbir Singh should have approached him for the vote as he had quarreled with his elder father previously. At the time of the incident the age of the appellant was 28 years and now he is more than 40 years. In his statement Under Section 313 Cr. PC he has given out that he was having three daughters and one son and all of them ware below seven years of age at that time. Those daughters must have now grown up and they might be of marriageable. Thus taking all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

9. In this connection it may be further submitted that in Damodar Prasad's case (supra) the accused was convicted Under Section 326 IPC but looking to the pendency of the criminal case for 10 years he was awarded the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 1000/. The accused had remained in jail for one month and 17 days in that case. Similarly in KhatarmaVs case (supra), also, sentence of imprisonment Under Section 326 IPC was reduced from three years' Rule I. to the period already undergone which was about two months. Reference can also be made in this connection to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (Cr. LR (SC) 1986 p. 469, in which their Lordship of the Supreme Court did not think it desirable to send the accused back to jail after 13 years though be was convicted Under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and he was awarded imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-.

10. In the aforesaid background of the various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court I feel that in lieu of reduction of the sentence of imprisonment, the amount of fine should be enhanced from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 2500/-Under Section 326 IPC. The sentence of fine Under Section 324 IPC is maintained.

11. Consequently, I partly allow this appeal, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Under Section 326 and 324, IPC. I reduce the sentence of imprisonment Under Section 326 and 224 IPC to the period already undergone by him and in lieu of reduction of sentence, amount of fine Under Section 326 IPC enhanced from 500/. to Rs. 2500/-, In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for six months. The sentence of fine Under Section 324 and the sentence of imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine is maintained. Four months time is given to the appellant to deposit the amount in the trial court. In case the amount is deposed by the appellant, Rs. 2500/- shall be paid to the injured Jasbir Singh and the learned trial court shall take steps to hand over the amount to him immediately.

12. The appellant is on bail, as such he need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1990 Same Parties Fatta Ram vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J.

Criminal