Jetha Ram And Ors Vs. State Of Rajasthan On 29 July, 2005

Open iDraf

Jetha Ram And Ors v. State Of Rajasthan

Jetha Ram And Ors
v.
State Of Rajasthan

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2005 | 29-07-2005

CRIMINAL & PREVENTIVE LAWS

B.N. Agrawal and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellant I (Jetha Ram) was convicted by the trial court under Section 326 of the Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and Appellants 2 and 3 (Balu Ram and Kishna Ram) under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each ; in default imprisonment for a period of four months. On appeal being preferred by the Appellants, the High Court maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

4. Before this Court the parties have filed a compromise petition. The offence under Section 326, I.P.C. is not compoundable, as such it is not possible to record the compromise, but it is well-settled that though compromise cannot be recorded for a non-compoundable offence, but the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. The Appellants have remained in custody for a period of about five months. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the Appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while maintaining conviction of the Appellants, their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The Appellants who are in custody are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

Advocates List

None.

Bench List

HON'BLE JUDGE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE JUDGE S.H. KAPADIA

Eq Citation

2005 (2) SCALE 503

2006 (3) ACR 3404 (SC)

(2006) 9 SCC 255

LQ/SC/2005/743

HeadNote

Criminal Appeal — Sentence — Reduction — Appellants convicted under S. 326 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 each; in default, imprisonment for four months — High Court maintained conviction but reduced sentence to one year — Compromise petition filed before Supreme Court — Though compromise cannot be recorded for non-compoundable offence, effect of compromise can be taken into consideration while awarding sentence — Appellants in custody for about five months — Sentence reduced to period already undergone — Appellants directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.