PRASAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.3.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 326 I.RC. recorded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh was confirmed but the sentence was reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to three months and fine of Rs. 3000.00, in default 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Other co-accused persons were also convicted alongwith the petitioner but they are not before us hence, we are not concerned about their conviction and the sentence.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only with regard to the quantum of sentence. He has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under section 326 I.RC. I have also perused the judgment of the two courts below wherein they have dealt with the entire evidence on record and all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and recorded the finding of conviction. There "are no cogent grounds to interfere with concurrent finding of the conviction recorded by the two courts below.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner may be released on the sentence already undergone which is about one months & 18 days because the parties have compromised the dispute which was filed in the court, which has been also referred in the judgment. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the reduction of the sentence on the ground that the petitioner was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and learned appellate court has already reduced substantially to mere three months rigorous imprisonment. In view of the nature of the injuries, further reduction of sentence is not justified. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to adequately compensate the injured Balwinder Singh S/o Katar Singh PW/4 R/o 15 BLD. I have considered the rival contentions. I have perused the injury report. It is an admitted position that the parties have compromised their dispute. Of course, the learned appellate court has reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment, having regard to the fact that parties have compromised. Still, I am of the view that the sentence should be further reduced provided the petitioner is pr epared to pay a compensation to the injured to the tune of Rs. 5,000.00.