Partly allowed

Sanwalya @ Sanwala v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2019CRLR/935/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a criminal revision seeking sentence reduction. Upholding conviction for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, and 447 IPC, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to the petitioner's long trial duration but imposed a fine of Rs.25,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone with an additional fine of Rs.25,000 payable to the injured; six months simple imprisonment on default.

Sanwalya @ Sanwala Vs State of Rajasthan through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 935/2018

¶3

Sanwalya @ Sanwala S/o Shri Devi Lal B/c Meena, R/o Samadpura, Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk, Raj. At Present Confined In District Jail, Tonk.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma. For State : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

03/01/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by Judgment and order dated 01.12.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month for offence under Section 341, imprisonment of one year for under Section 323, imprisonment of three years for under Section 324, imprisonment of four years for under Section 325, imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment for under Section 326, and imprisonment of three months for under Section 447 of IPC, and against the Judgment and Order Dated 24.05.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶13

(2 of 3) [CRLR-935/2018]

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner does not press the appeal on merits. His only contention is that from the statement of the injured PW-8 Jamna Lal, it is revealed that there was no prior enmity between the parties and the injured did not even know as to why the incident took place with him. It is argued that the petitioner has undergone the agony of facing the trial from 2007 and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Petitioner has five daughters to look after, who are nearing the age of marriage. There is no one to look after his daughters. Though it is not the defence of the accused that incident took place because of certain provocation, but since no enmity is pointed out, it implies that the incident took place on the spur of the moment.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “ Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab 1986(4) SCC 401”.

¶16

A prayer is made before the Court that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than seven months hence the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

The injured had sustained as many as eight injuries, out of which, two were caused by a sharp weapon. The allegation of using the sharp weapon is assigned to the petitioner. Out of the two injuries assigned to the petitioner, which was caused by sharp weapon, one of the injury on leg was grievous. As per the statement of the injured, there was no prior enmity between the parties and the injured was not aware as to why he was beaten up

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLR-935/2018]

¶22

by the petitioner and the other co-accused-Kalu, who expired during the pendency of the trial.

¶23

Apex Court in Naib Singh (Supra) dealt with a case where head injury was caused by a gandasa. The Apex Court upholding the conviction under Section 326 of IPC, taking a lenient view and looking to the fact that the incident took place 13 years back, reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year awarded by the High Court to the imprisonment till the rising of the Court and directed the appellant to deposit fine to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

¶24

Considering the Judgment of the Apex Court, and also the fact that in the present case, petitioner has faced the agony of trial for a period of eleven years and has remained in custody for more than seven months, also looking into the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision petition.

¶25

Criminal revision is partly allowed, while upholding the Judgment of conviction passed by the courts below, the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, petitioner would be required to deposit a fine of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to the injured. On non payment of fine, petitioner would be required to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

¶26

The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. Application for Suspension of Sentence stands disposed.

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶28

Chandan/38

Sanwalya @ Sanwala v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanwalya @ Sanwala v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooran and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Satish Kumar Circle Officer Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Bajrang Singh Shekhawat B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohd.Moien and Ors. Vs State

Pappu @ Basantilal S/O Kashiram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Amar Finance Co. through Proprietor Smt Amarjit Kaur Vs Pushpinder Sharma S/O Shri Jai Govind Sharma