NARAIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants contended that he does not want to assail the findings of the trial Court on merits. He merely submits that the occurrence took place in the year 1978. Accused-appellants remained on bail through out the period of trial and after their conviction this Court released the appellants on bail. This appeal was filed in the year 1980 and since 1980 appellant Narain remained in custody for about 20 days after passing the impugned judgment and subsequently he was released on bail by the order of this Court. Learned counsel further contended that the appellants are leading a settled life for the last about ten years even after their conviction. Appellants Narain and Ram Dhan are agriculturist by profession and Sheo Chand though is a railway employee but he is also having agricultural land in his possession and the same is being cultivated. It has been further contended that during the period when the appellants remained on bail, they never misused the concession and there is nothing on record to show that within the period of 12 years since the date of incident they either repeated the offence or their antecedents or character is of objectionable nature. Accused appellant Narain remained in jail for 62 days before filing of the challan. It is thus clear that Narain remained in jail in all for about 82 days. In view of the aforesaid circumstances learned counsel for the appellants contended that this is a fit case where, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, their sentences should be reduced.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection if the accused appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone.

(3.) I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. A look of the record shows that the facts given by the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be correct and there is nothing on record to show that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are in correct. A look of the record shows that the occurrence took place at the spur of moment on a very trifle matter. Accused appellants have been convicted under section 304 (2). It is clear that the appellants want to attend the marriage. At the initial stage, they never intended to commit any offence and the incident took place at the time when both the parties were taking meals at the marriage and at that time Moti who was taking meal while having shoes in his feet has been objected by the appellant Narain and that became the cause of incident. It is settled principle of law that while passing the sentence against convicted persons. Court is bound to consider the character, antecedents and circumstances of the case and in doing so Court is fully empowered to take a lenient view while passing the sentence. As said earlier that the occurrence took place in the year 1978. So looking to the character, antecedents of the accused appellants and the facts of the case it will not be just and proper to send the appellants in jail to serve out the remaining sentence if their sentence is maintained. I also feel it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellants for the period already undergone. So while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, I reduce the sentences of the appellants for the period already undergone.