AJAMTULLA & GORIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to assail the finding to conviction. He mainly submits that on the day of incident the accused appellant was a student and that there is nothing on record to show that he either repeated the below. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and without any premeditation. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that looking to the age of the appellant and the date of incident, the sentence be reduced for a period already undergone by him.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the entire record.

(3.) A look at the record shows that the allegation against the accused appellant is that he inflicted a knife blow on the person of injured Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) and fortunately the injury did not prove fatal, so looking to the overt act alleged against the accused and the nature of injury which has been proved by the doctor who prepared the injury report. I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the accused appellant under Sec. 307 Penal Code but the learned trial Court while passing the sentence erred in not considering the peculiar circumstances of the case because while passing the sentence it is necessary for the criminal Court to consider the peculiar circumstances. In the instant case, the learned trial Court itself found that on the date of incident the appellant was student. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1983 and after the incident the accused appellant is now leading a settled life and if he is sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence then a lot of hardship shall be faced not only to the accused appellant but his family members also. The accused appellant remained in jail for about one and half month, so ends of justice will be met in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced for a period already undergone by him.