RAM PRATAP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ram Pratap has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-and in default of payment thereof to 25 days rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, Ram Pratap has come in revision before this Court.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that there was some dispute about agricultural land between the father of the complainant Kalu Ram and father of the accused Ram Pratap and Prithviraj. On July 13, 1973, Kalu Rams father Ganesha Ram was returning from the field and at that time Prithvi, Manphool and Ram Pratap petitioner assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his body. Prosecution case was that Prithvi had a 12 bore gun with him, Rampratap petitioner had a Kasia and Manphool a lathi in his hand Manphool inflicted injuries on the back of Ganesh Ram by lathi and other lathi blow was inflicted on his hips So far as Ram Pratap is concerned it was alleged that he had inflicted injury by Kasia on the left thigh of Ganesha Ram. After investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner Ram Pratap and Prithvi. It may be mentioned that Manphool had died during the course of investigation. The Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur by his judgment dated October 28, 1977 held both Ram Pratap and Prithvi guilty for the offences under sections 325 and 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. Ram Pratap was further held guilty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. Ram Pratap was sentenced to rigorous-imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and to 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325 and to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. A fine of Rs. 50/- was also imposed. In default of the payment of the fine, Ram Pratap was further to undergo imprisonment for 2 months. So far as Prithvi is concerned, although he was convicted and sentenced by Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Karanpur but in appeal Prithvi was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar on August 4, 1979 of all the charges. The Additional Sessions Judge held Ram Pratap petitioner guilty of the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one yearTs rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of the fine, Ram Pratap was further to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. It is against this conviction that Ram Pratap has come in revision before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for Ram Pratap petitioner only prayed for clemancy. It was urged by him that the incident is of the year 1973 and at that time age of Ram Pratap was about 23 years. Ram Pratap has sufficiently felt pangs of this criminal litigation for last more than 12 years. From the prosecution evidence only one injury by a sharp weapon, which is an incised wound on lower 1/3 of left thigh has been attributed to Ram Pratap. It was also pointed out that Ram Pratap has already been in Jail for 10 days and requirements of justice would be served if the sentence already undergone by the petitioner is treated as sufficient. Looking to the above circumstances of the case that the offence was of a minor character the petitioner has already faced this protracted criminal litigation for last 12 years and he has already been in Jail for to days, it would be fit to reduce the substantive sentence of the period during which the petitioner has already been in Jail. But however, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 500/-. In default of payment or fine, the petitioner Ram Pratap would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. On depositing the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 300/- would be paid to the injured Ganesha Ram. The petitioner is granted one months time to deposit the fine and on such deposit being made a sum of Rs. 300/- would be paid to Ganesh Ram injured. This revision is accordingly partly allowed and the sentence is modified accordingly.