IMMAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 30, 1989, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. . .

(2.) THE appellants Immamuddin and Aziz Khan alongwith Hakim Khan, Allahabachy and Hanif were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149, I. P. C. THE learned Sessions Judge after trial, acquitted Hakim, Allahabachy and Hanif for all the offences, with which they were tried, but convicted the present appellants Immamuddin and Aziz Khan for the offence under Section 204 Part I, I. P. C. and senterced each of the appellants to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. It is against, this judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellants, that the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants.

(3.) THE last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sentence awarded by the learned lower Court to the accused-appellants is very harsh and excessive. THE motive in the case has not been proved and the accused are behind the bars for about last four years and, therefore, it would be proper that the sentence passed on the appellants may be reduced to that already undergone by them. Accused Immamuddin is aged about 17 years while according to the estimate of the Court, he is about 20 years. Accused Aziz Khan, according to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on the date of his examination, was said to be 22 years of age while the estimate of the Court is that he was aged about 24 years. Thus accused Immamuddin on the date of the incident, was approximately 17 years of age while accused-appellant was approximately of 20 to 21 years of age. Both these appellants were less than 21 years of age on the date of the incident. Both are repenting over their acts and there are no previous convictions to their credit. In these facts and circumstances J of the case, I think it proper to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants from ten years to that of five years each.