CHIMMAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 8, 1973 at 7 p m. the accused having formed an unlawful assembly came to the scene of occurrence and gave beating to Ramdayal and Kundan Lal Jatavs who were taking bath. The first information report was lodged at the police station; Kumher. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against all the seven accused petitioners who were tried by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpar under Sections 323, 147 and 379 I.P.C. Placing reliance on the statements of the injured witnesses corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused persons under Sec. 323 Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50.00. All the accused persons were also convicted under, section 147 Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50.00. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The accused petitioners were however, acquitted of the charge punishable under Sec. 379 IPC. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the accused-petitioners went up in appeal, which came up for hearing before the Addl. sessions Judge Bharatpur who after reappraisal of the evidence on record, maintained the conviction of the accused petitioners under sections 323 and 147 I.P.C. but altered the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine and each of them was sentenced to pay of fine of Rs. 200.00 under each count. He fur. then ordered that out of the fine recovered an amount of Rs. 500.00 will he paid to each of the injured persons namely Ramdayal and Kundan Lal. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The controversy it, this case has been reduced to a narrow compass because the learned counsel for the petitioners looking to that preponderance of evidence on record, concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below and considering the scope of revision, has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accused-petitioners on merits. The only point pressed before me is regarding the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused petitioners Atarsingh, Mohanlal, Chimman, Keshav, Teja and Gulab Singh. As regards Yadram, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he is an employee in the Indian Army & is a boy of 23 years. If the sentence of fine is maintained, he will have to lose his job and that will have the effect of ruining his entire life and driving him to a life of crimes. The offence is an offshoot of trifling matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that he had committed an offence of moral turpitude.

(3.) The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused-petitioners, Atar Singh, Mohanlal, Chimman, Keshav, Teja and Gulab Singh under Sec. 323 and 147 Penal Code are maintained. The sentence awarded to each of them is reduced to Rs. 100.00 each under each count.