High Court reduced sentences and granted release of petitioners who had undergone part of their sentence, cancelling bail bonds and maintaining convictions.
Petitioners released for the period already undergone in custody; sentences reduced; bail bonds cancelled; convictions maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 670/2010 (Baneey Singh Versus The State of Rajasthan)
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 751/2010 (Chotiya @ Chote Lal Versus State of Rajasthan)
Date of Judgment :: 15th Jul y, 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Manjeet Kumar for Mr. Harendra Sinsinwar, for the petitioner(s) in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 670/2010
Mr. Sudhanshu Joshi, counsel for the petitioner(s) in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 751/2010 Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State
Since both these revision petitions arise out of the same incident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that on
28.6.2000, the complainant Ram Charan lodged a written report at Police Station, Bandikui. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 359/2000 was registered. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. The cognizance was taken against the accused persons. After hearing the arguments, the charges were framed. The accused persons denied for the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the
learned trial court passed the judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 convicting the accused persons Banney Singh S/o Ramchandra, Ramchandra S/o Hetaram, Moturam S/o Ramchandra and Shyamlal S/o Ramchandra for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC and sentenced them as under:
U/s. 341 IPC :To undergo 1 month's SI U/s. 323 IPC :TO undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 100/-.
U/s. 324 IPC : To undergo 2 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 200/-
U/s. 325 IPC : To undergo 3 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-
U/s. 326 IPC : To undergo 3 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-
In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 day, 2 days, 1 month and 2 months simple imprisonment.
Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui, vide judgment and order dated 8.6.2010 affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court qua accused appellant Banney Singh, but so far as the accused persons Ramchander, Mothuram and Shyam Lal are concerned, their conviction was maintained, but their sentence was modified and they were released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders' Act and they were asked to
furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of one year. Against the said judgment of the appellate court, the Cr. Revision Petition No. 670/2010 has been filed by the accused Banney Singh against his conviction and sentence, as awarded by the courts below.
Likewise, with regard to the same incident, a written report was submitted by the complainant Shyam Lal and Banney Singh on 28.6.2000 in Police Station, Bandikui. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 360/2000 was lodged and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the accused persons. Thereafter the cognizance was taken. After hearing the arguments, the charges were read over to the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 crPC. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused persons Hargyan S/o Chhotya and Ramcharan S/o Lohdya for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 IPC and sentenced them as under:
U/s. 341 IPC: To undergo 1 month's imprisonment U/s. 323 IPC: To undergo 6 months' imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 100/-
U/s. 324 IPC: To undergo 2 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 day and 2 days' simple imprisonment.
Accused Chhotya @ Chhote Lal S/o Lohdi Ram was convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo as under:
U/s. 341 IPC: To undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment
U/s. 323 IPC: To undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100
U/s. 324 IPC: To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-
U/s. 326 IPC: To undergo 3 years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-
In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 day, 2 days, and 2 months' simple imprisonment.
Against the said judgment passed by the trial court, the accused persons Hargyan, Chhotya and Ramcharan preferred appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui, who vide judgment and order dated 8th June, 2010 maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused Chhotya @ Chhote Lal, but while maintaining the conviction of accused persons Hargyan and Ramcharan, their sentence was modified and they were released on probation under Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders' Act and they were asked to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of one year. Against the said judgment of the appellate court, the Cr. Revision Petition No. 751/2010 has been filed by the accused Chotiya @ Chote Lal against his conviction and sentence, as awarded by the courts below.
Learned counsel for both parties have contended that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but they are only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place on 28.6.2000 i.e. about 15 years' ago from today; the petitioners are facing the trial since the last 15 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioners were young and now the petitioners are the old aged persons; the accused petitioner Banney Singh has remained in custody for about 38 days and accused petitioner Chotiya @ Chote Lal has remained in custody for about 64 days, the petitioners are married persons and having the children of marriageable age; there was a cross case in between the parties and both the parties have entered into the compromise, a copy of which annexed with the file; they are not previously convicted persons, and other co-accused persons have been released on probation, the accused petitioners should also be released on probation, if not, then they should be
released for the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated here-in-above.
Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the petitioners should be given the benefit of probation nor they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated herein-above. Hence, both these revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i) Both the Cr. Revisions filed by the petitioners Banney Singh and Chotiya @ Chote Lal are partly allowed;
ii) Their conviction is maintained. Their sentence is reduced and they are released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above.
iii)The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be released on probation or for the period already undergone in custody given the time lapse since the offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baneey Singh
Chotiya @ Chote Lal
The State of Rajasthan
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
