Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Kesra Ram vs State of Rajasthan

This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 04.02.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Sessions Case No.116/94, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC as

under :

Offence U./Sec.:- Sentence awarded:-

324 IPC :- 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence, however, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the aforesaid offence be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident, for which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, took place in the year 1992 and till now, around 25 years have been passed to that incident. It is contended that the appellant and the complainant are the near relatives as the complainant's sister was married to the appellant. It is contended that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and the appellant had no intention to kill the complainant. It is contended that the appellant remained in jail for around 110 days during the pendency of trial as well as the present appeal and as such he has already served out more than 3 months sentence out of the total sentence of 1 year and at this stage, it is not in the interest of justice as well as it will very harsh for the appellant to send him back behind the bars.

Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC may kindly be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court and argued that the prosecution has sufficiently proved his guilt before the trial court, the sentence awarded by the trial court is not liable to be reduced.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record.

Though, the learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the findings of the trial court of convicting the accused appellant, however, this Court, in the interest of justice, has scrutinized the record to find out whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of an oral statement of PW-3 Norang Lal, recorded on 05.07.1992, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 324 IPC. It is stated that PW-4 Vidhya Devi, daughter of complainant PW-3 Norang Lal, was married to the accused appellant. It is alleged that the accused appellant used to assault PW-4 Vidhya Devi and for this reason PW-2 Mohan Lal, son of PW-3 Norang Lal and brother of PW-4 Vidhya Devi, went to his house on 26.06.1992 to console and pacify him. It is alleged that when PW-2 Mohan Lal was talking with the appellant, then suddenly the appellant inflicted injury by a knife on his chest. Thereafter, the PW-2 Mohan Lal admitted in the hospital and Panchayat was convened, however, the appellant refused to compromise the matter, hence, this FIR is being filed.

As per the medical report, the injury received by the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal was dangerous to life and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was added and later on, the police had filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

The trial court framed charge against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offence.

To prove the charges against the accused appellant, the prosecution had produced as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no evidence was produced in defence.

The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced by the prosecution, has convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

Having carefully scrutinized the record of the case and particularly the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, PW-2 Mohan Lal (injured), PW-3 Norang Lal and PW-4 Vidhya Devi, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that on 25.06.1992, the accused appellant inflicted a knife injury on the chest of the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal and the said knife, used by the appellant in inflicting injury on the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal, was recovered at his instance and the recovery of the knife has also been proved by PW-5 Om Prakash.

This Court is also of the opinion that the trial court has rightly observed that since, the appellant has inflicted one injury on the injured PW-2 Mohan Lal, it cannot be said that the appellant has assaulted the injured with the intention to kill him and, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

So far as the sentence part is concerned, it is to be noticed that the incident took place in the year 1992 and till now, around 25 years have been passed to that incident and the accused appellant remained in jail for around 110 days during the pendency of trial as well as the present appeal and as such he has served out more than 3 months of sentence out of total sentence of 1 years. It is also to be noticed that the appellant and the complainant are the near relatives and the incident took place during heated arguments between them and the appellant has inflicted only one injury, though, under those circumstances, in which the incident took place, he has opportunity to inflict more injuries also.

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentences of imprisonment of the accused appellant awarded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC are reduced from 1 year's rigorous imprisonment to the sentence already undergone by him.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant - Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Kesra Ram @ Om Prakash recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, his sentence is reduced from 1 year's rigorous imprisonment to the sentence already undergone by him.

The impugned judgment dated 04.02.1995 passed by the trial court is modified accordingly.