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.

Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Jai Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 26, 1986
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/761745

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. Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1977
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 304(2)--Sentence--Accused 72 years old Undergone imprisonment partly--Held, sentence be reduced to already undergone and fine of Rs. 3,500/- is imposed to be paid to widow and heirs of deceased.;Appeal Partly Accepted -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1986(2)WLN403

Excerpt

penal code - section 304(2)--sentence--accused 72 years old undergone imprisonment partly--held, sentence be reduced to already undergone and fine of rs. 3,500/- is imposed to be paid to widow and heirs of deceased.;appeal partly accepted - guman mal lodha, j.1. this is an appeal by the appellant, jairam, against the judgment by which he has been convicted and sentenced to two year's r.i. for the offence under section 304(2) ipc.2. the only point pressed by shri v.l. mathur at the end of his arguments is that the appellant is of 72 years of age. since he has undergone some part of the term of his sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial court, the ends of justice would be met if he is released on the sentence already undergone.3. shri s.b. mathur has opposed the appeal.4. it was argued that in case this court is inclined to release the accused on the sentence already undergone, then substantial amount of fine should be imposed to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased including the widow.5. mr. v.l. mathur submits that his client will not be able to pay fine of more than rs. 5,000/- as he is an agriculturist.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case it is ordered that the appellant would pay the fine of rs. 3,500/- within a period of six months from date of receipt of record from the trial court & this amount will be paid as compensation to the widow and failing that to alive legal heirs of gopal. in default, the appellant will undergo imprisonment of one year r.i. the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone.7. the appeal is partially accepted as indicate above.

Full Judgment

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. This is an appeal by the appellant, Jairam, against the judgment by which he has been convicted and sentenced to two year's R.I. for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC.

2. The only point pressed by Shri V.L. Mathur at the end of his arguments is that the appellant is of 72 years of age. Since he has undergone some part of the term of his sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial court, the ends of justice would be met if he is released on the sentence already undergone.

3. Shri S.B. Mathur has opposed the appeal.

4. It was argued that in case this Court is inclined to release the accused on the sentence already undergone, then substantial amount of fine should be imposed to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased including the widow.

5. Mr. V.L. Mathur submits that his client will not be able to pay fine of more than Rs. 5,000/- as he is an agriculturist.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is ordered that the appellant would pay the fine of Rs. 3,500/- within a period of six months from date of receipt of record from the trial court & this amount will be paid as compensation to the widow and failing that to alive legal heirs of Gopal. In default, the appellant will undergo imprisonment of one year R.I. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone.

7. The appeal is partially accepted as indicate above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial