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.

Devendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Devendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 21, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770074

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
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - 2. I have learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor and scanned the material on record.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devendra Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Prabha Rashu Machhi v. State of Gujarat
Reported In
RLW2008(1)Raj509

Excerpt

- - 2. i have learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor and scanned the material on record.shiv kumar sharma, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated april 24, 2002 of learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 3, bharatpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 307 ipc and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. i have learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor and scanned the material on record.3. i have no doubt that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 307 ipc. reasons given by learned trial judge 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 mahesh (pw. 2) sustain injuries on non vital parts of his body. the appellant was arrested on january 22, 2002 and has remained in custody for a period of more than five years.3.1. it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since the injured mahesh (p.w. 2) received injuries on non vital parts of his body the sentence of appellant may be reduced. reliance is placed on prabha rashu machhi v. state of gujarat : air 1980 sc1758 , wherein the apex court considering the nature of injuries reduced the sentence from ten years to five years. in the case on hand, as already noticed that the injured received injuries on non vital parts of his body, i find it a fit case to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant.4. i accordingly allow the appeal in part and while upholding the conviction of appellant under section 307 ipc, i reduce the sentence of appellant from seven years to five years. the appellant devendra singh, who has already been remained in custody for more than 5 years and still in confinement, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

Full Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated April 24, 2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, whereby the appellant was convicted Under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. I have learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor and scanned the material on record.

3. I have no doubt that the appellant was rightly convicted Under Section 307 IPC. Reasons given by learned trial Judge 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 Mahesh (PW. 2) sustain injuries on non vital parts of his body. The appellant was arrested on January 22, 2002 and has remained in custody for a period of more than five years.

3.1. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that since the injured Mahesh (P.W. 2) received injuries on non vital parts of his body the sentence of appellant may be reduced. Reliance is placed on Prabha Rashu Machhi v. State of Gujarat : AIR 1980 SC1758 , wherein the Apex court considering the nature of injuries reduced the sentence from ten years to five years. In the case on hand, as already noticed that the injured received injuries on non vital parts of his body, I find it a fit case to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant.

4. I accordingly allow the appeal in part and while upholding the conviction of appellant Under Section 307 IPC, I reduce the sentence of appellant from seven years to five years. The appellant Devendra Singh, who has already been remained in custody for more than 5 years and still in confinement, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial