PURKHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant accused was working as Lance Nayak in the military. He was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.3.1979 the accused was going with his 12 bore gun in a drunken condition and he fired a shot on Bhagirath P.W. 8 from his gun and also opened fire on P.W. 2, Chunni Lal and P.W. 4 Bhanwar Lal, who also received injuries on their person. However, the injuries were not on the vital part of their body, therefore, there was no casualty. The Trial Court found the prosecution evidence reliable to convict the accused, therefore, by judgment and order dated 12.6.1981 convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 and sentenced him for three years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default to further undergo 4 months R.I. He was also convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ - and in default to further undergo two months R.I. He was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer one year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default to further undergo one months R.I. However, Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Sections 307, 324 IPC alongwith Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) MR . Gaur then submitted that the incident is an old one of 1979 which took place almost 20 years from today. He has remained in jail for about 10 days, therefore, interest of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence to the sentence as already undergone. It is true that almost 20 years period have passed by now, but that itself would not be sufficient to reduce the sentence. There are cases and cases in which the Courts have to consider quantam of sentence. Sentence is a discretion of the Court which has to be exercised in a judicious manner. If this argument is accepted that 20 years have passed after the incident then no one can be kept in jail whose cases are heard after 50 years. Other accused may not have to undergo the sentence only because the appeals of 1981 are heard in 1998 i.e., after 18 years. In fact, in a fit cases, this Court has passed the order of the sentence already undergone but in my opinion looking to the peculiar facts of this case it is not a case in which any leniency should be shown to the accused.