SATIDAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, dated July 8, 1987 partly allowing the appeal against the judgment of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, dated Oct. 6, 1982 whereby he convicted and sentenced nine accused persons for various offences. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after reappraisal of the evidence acquitted three accused, namely, Shanker Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Malaram of all the charges. Accused Revat Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal, hence it abated. The remaining five accused-petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under :

(2.) This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. Various points were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments including that of inordinate delay in registration of the case as also in remitting the F.I.R. to the court. It was also contended that learned appellate judge himself has disbelieved the prosecution story qua three accused persons and in that eventuality the witnesses are not wholly truthful witnesses and it is contended that evidence should be re-appraised. I regret the same cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. I find no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the judgment so as to call for the interference in the revision petition However, I am inclined to consider the case of the petitioners for dealing their case under the provisions of Sec. 360 Cr. P. C.

(3.) The incident in this case took place on Nov. 12, 1975 at 10.00 a.m. and thus 111/2 years have elapsed since then. As many as 9 persons have been facing trial and it took 7 years to complete the same. The disposal of the appeal also took 5 years. Thus for 111/2 years the petitioners alongwith others have been facing the trial. Besides this, it is not disputed that the incident took place suddenly on cutting of a tree. This incident was not premeditated it was spontaneous and the petitioners took up the arms inflicting injuries on the persons of the complainant-injured. The trial court has found the case proved under I.S. 325 Penal Code only against Gheeshu and the others have been convicted for offence 9 under Sec. 323, 452 and 147 IPC. Thus the nature of offence found proved was also such for which the case could be considered under the provisions of Sec. 360 Cr. P. C. It is also pertinent to mention that accused Gheeshu and Bajranga were young boys, while Richhpal Singh is in the evening of his life. All the accused-petitioners have remained in jail for a short period as there is no long sentence awarded and this is not going to have any reformatory affect. For all these reasons extend them the benefit of Sec. 360 Cr. P. C.