BHERUN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Bherun, son of Moti Jat was convicted by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries by an axe to Mst. Jamni and was sentenced to 2 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default of the payment of which to undergo imprisonment for further period of one month. It was also ordered that out of the fine, if realised Rs. 100/ - will be paid to Mst. Jamni as compensation The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara who by his judgment dated January 22, 1972 dismissed the same. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution story in a nut shell is that PW. 1 Smt. Jamni, widow of Bakhtawar Jat had taken PW. 4 Gopi in adoption and as such the accused bore an ill will towards her. On October 25, 1970 at 7 p.m Mst. Jamni came from her fields to her house Accused Bherun intercepted her at the outer door of her 'Gawadi' and inflicted axe blows causing three injuries on her person. She raised a cry for help. PW 2 Cahoga, PW 3 Dalu and PW. 4 Gopi came to her rescue and saved her from further beating. A first information report of this occurrence was given at the Police Station Gangapur on 26 -10 -1970 at 9 p.m. The Police Station is situated at a distance of 8 miles from the scene of occurrence. The Police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif -Magistrate, Gangapur. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. In support of their case the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom four witnesses were examined as eye witnesses. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the charge punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him as already mentioned above. The appeal filed by the accused was also dismissed.

(3.) LASTLY , the learned Counsel urged that the accused has remained in jail for a considerable period. The occurrence took place in the year 1970 and the petitioner had been under agony for a long and protracted trial Hesi a cultivator by profession and the ends of justice would be amply served if the accuted is sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone. No useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail for a few days, fiveyears after the incident. It is true that the lapse of a long period between the date of the commencement of the trial and the hearing of the appeal by the High Court is a factor which in the context of a particular case, may, in conjunction with the other circumstances, justify the reduction of sentence. Taking the conspectus of the various circumstances of the case some of which have been indicated above, I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence.