High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 12 RAJ CK 0023

State of Rajasthan Through P.P. vs Mangi Lal Sharma

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 11 December 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
241 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 347 words
1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the State of

Rajasthan for enhancement of the sentence.

2.

Accused respondent Mangi Lal Sharma was tried by the

court of Additional Sessions Judge NO.4, Kota. The case of the

prosecution in written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Radharani

wife of accused respondent presented at Police Station Kaithoon is that that the accused respondent is drug addict and he has caused

a lathi injury on the forehead of his wife when she refused to part

money on demand of accused respondent to have liquor. The trial

Judge held accused respondent guilty of offences under Sections

323, 327 and 308 IPC. Having convicted the accused respondent

for the above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order

of even date sentenced the accused respondent as under:-

U/s. 323 IPC - to undergo one year SI and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month SI.

U/s. 327 IPC - to undergo three years SI and to pay a fine of

Rs.2000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month SI.

U/s. 308 IPC - to undergo five years SI and to pay a fine of

Rs.2000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month SI.

3.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

No ground for enhancement is made out, as sentence

of five years for offence under Section 308 IPC cannot be said to

be on the lower side. Hence, the S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 241/2017

along with application for condonation of delay are dismissed.

S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1210 / 2016:

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the appellant has already filed appeal through counsel, hence,

the present jail appeal filed is superfluous and may be disposed of

as such.

5.

On the statement made by the learned counsel for the

appellant, the present appeal preferred through jail is disposed of

as superfluous as the appellant has already filed an appeal [S.B.

Cr. Appeal No. 1313/2016] through his counsel.