BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh (for short 'the appellate Court', hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2005 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 400/1992, whereby the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 341, IPC and sentenced him to undergo two and a half yeas simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 IPC, one year's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, IPC; six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323, IPC and 15 days' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341, IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment and order of the trial Court came to be affirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment and order impugned dated 23.9.2005. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders impugned convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) At the very outset, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences noticed above. However, the Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to assailing the quantum of sentence and submitted that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment in connection with water turn to the field. The dispute was that the petitioner claimed his water turn from 2.48 PM to 4.10 PM., whereas the complainant before 4.10 PM started taking water from the water turn of the petitioner, which was the cause of occurrence and on the spur of the moment, the occurrence took place and, therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment for two and a half years for the offence under Section 326, IPC may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered the imprisonment for more than 15 months and as such he has undergone the substantial part of substantive sentence.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments and orders impugned. He submits that the sentence awarded by both the Courts below cannot be said to be excessive.