- (1.) APPELLANTS have challenged the judgment dated 21.08.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offences under Section 459/34 and 394/34 IPC. For both these offences, he has sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and has imposed them with fine of Rs.1,000.00 and has directed them to further undergo a period of six months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Deva Ram (P.W.4) submitted a written report (Ex.P/5), wherein he claimed that on 15.10.1983, his uncle Hardeen (P.W.1) was sleeping in the inner courtyard of his house. Around 3 O' Clock in the night, his uncle heard some noises. When he woke up, he saw the appellants Sohan, Ramji and Poonia trying to open the lock of a room. He caught hold of Sohan. However, Poonia and Ramji assaulted him with lathis. Consequently, his uncle lost two teeth and sustained injuries on his fingers. They also tried to strangulate him. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR was chalked out for offences under Sections 459, 325, 323 and 394 IPC. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed against them for offences under Sections 459/34, 394/34, 325, 325/34 and Section 323 IPC.
(2.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted few documents. However, the defence neither examined any evidence nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 21.08.1989, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Tak, has frankly conceded that he does not wish to argue the case on merit. He would like to confine his pleas to the sentences awarded. According to him, the case relates to the year 1983 and the appellants stood trial for six long years. At the time of commission of the alleged offence, all the three appellants were youngmen between the ages of 25 to 30. Subsequently, the appellants have settled into a peaceful life where they have not disturbed the even tempo of life. Except for this offence allegedly committed by them, they have not been involved in any other criminal activity. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars after a lapse of almost twenty-two years. Relying on the case of Heerdas & Ors. Vs. State [2010 (2) Current Judgments (Cr.) (Raj.) 740], and relying on the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Harlal [2011(1) RLW 873 (Raj.)], the learned counsel has prayed that the sentences should be reduced to as already undergone. While Poonia, appellant No.1 has undergone a sentence of 19 days, Ramji Ram has undergone a sentence of 49 days and Sohan has undergone a sentence of 39 days.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that in case this Court reduces the sentences as undergone, the fine should be increased drastically to Rs.10,000.00.;