Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Lalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Lalu Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 02, 1990
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/761045

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 175 of 1989
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 376--Sentence--Accused 52 years old--Not previous convict--Undergone 2.5 years imprisonment-Still suffering from A.C. Myocardial infraction--Held, it is justified to reduce sentence to already undergone;The accused in jail since June 23, 1987, he is 52 years of age. He is not a previous convict....

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalu Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1990WLN(UC)1

Excerpt

penal code - section 376--sentence--accused 52 years old--not previous convict--undergone 2.5 years imprisonment-still suffering from a.c. myocardial infraction--held, it is justified to reduce sentence to already undergone;the accused in jail since june 23, 1987, he is 52 years of age. he is not a previous convict.... the medical certificate issued by dr. r.s. rathore dated sept. 2, 1989, also shows that he is still undergoing treatment for a.c. myocardial infraction. looking to these circumstances the interference with quantum of sentence seems justified. the sentence already under gone by the accused, which is more than 2.5 years shall meet the ends of justice.;appeal partly allowed - sobhag mal jain, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated may 3, 1989, of the additional sessions judge, nohar, district sri ganganagar, convicting the appellant under section 376, ipc and sentencing him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.2. counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction. he has submitted that in the circumstances of the present case the sentence already undergone should be treated as sufficient. learned counsel in this connection sumbitted that the accused is a heart-patient and requires proper medical treatment which can not be given to him in jail. he has in this connection produced the medical certificate issued by dr. r.s. rathore, physician & senior cas, central jail, bikaner. the certificate shows that the accused is is suffering from ac myocardial infraction.3. the accused in jail since june 23, 1987, he is 52 years of age. he is not a previous convict. the discharge certificates issued by the sardar patel medical college, bikaner, where he was earlier treated, disclose that his disease was diagonised as acute extensive myocardial infraction. further, the medical certificate issued by dr. r.s. rathore dated september 2, 1989, also shows that he is still undergoing treatment for a.c. myocardial infarction. looking to these circumstances the interference with quantum of sentence seems justified. the sentence already under gone by the accused, which is more than 2-1/2 years shall meet the ends of justice.4. accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 376, ipc is maintained. his sentence is how ever, reduced to (he one already under gone by him. the sentence of fine of rs. 100/- is maintained. he shall deposit the fine within one month from today, failing which he shall undergo the sentence awarded to him in lieu of fine by the additional sessions judge, nohar.

Full Judgment

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 3, 1989, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar, convicting the appellant Under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.

2. Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction. He has submitted that in the circumstances of the present case the sentence already undergone should be treated as sufficient. Learned Counsel in this connection sumbitted that the accused is a heart-patient and requires proper medical treatment which can not be given to him in jail. He has in this connection produced the medical certificate issued by Dr. R.S. Rathore, Physician & Senior CAS, Central Jail, Bikaner. The certificate shows that the accused is is suffering from AC Myocardial infraction.

3. The accused in jail since June 23, 1987, he is 52 years of age. He is not a previous convict. The discharge certificates issued by the Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, where he was earlier treated, disclose that his disease was diagonised as acute extensive myocardial infraction. Further, the medical certificate issued by Dr. R.S. Rathore dated September 2, 1989, also shows that he is still undergoing treatment for A.C. Myocardial infarction. Looking to these circumstances the interference with quantum of sentence seems justified. The sentence already under gone by the accused, which is more than 2-1/2 years shall meet the ends of justice.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused for the offence Under Section 376, IPC is maintained. His sentence is how ever, reduced to (he one already under gone by him. The sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- is maintained. He shall deposit the fine within one month from today, failing which he shall undergo the sentence awarded to him in lieu of fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial