Maintenance of criminal appeal involving IPC offences. Court partly allowed appeal to reduce sentence of respondent Bhuria to period already undergone while maintaining conviction, citing appellant Bala's death and limited role of Bhuria.
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 306/1994
Bala @ Bal Kishan And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Khushboo Vyas, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
19/07/2022
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellants may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them ”
(2 of 5)
[CRLA-306/1994]
Sessions Case 13/94, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows :-
Bala @ Bal Kishan
Section 308 IPC :- 3 ½ years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.
Section 324 IPC :- 01 year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.
Bhuria @ Puran
Section 308/34 IPC :- 3 ½ years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.
Section 324/34 IPC :- 01 year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of Court to the evidence rendered by Shivlal (PW-3), who was the main injured person in the incident. The deposition of PW-3 Shivlal reflects that all of them being small time Thela/Redhi workers had a conflict of working in same area which resulted into Shivlal being caught by Bhuria.
(3 of 5)
[CRLA-306/1994]
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of Court to statements of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. OP Sharma, PW-2 Sitaram, PW-4 Omprakash, PW-5 Lala @ Omprakash, PW-6 Brijlal, PW-7 Dr. OP Garg, PW-8 Rajendra Kumar, PW-9 Chhotu Ram, PW-10 Pratap Singh, PW-11 Hetram and PW-12 Dilip Kumar.
Counsel for the appellant submits that since Bala has expired and Bhuria was facing allegation of catching hold of Shivlal, while Bala inflicted knife injury, it would be suffice that the appellantBhuria be let gone in undergone sentence.
(4 of 5)
[CRLA-306/1994]
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“ There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. ”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”
(5 of 5)
[CRLA-306/1994]
undergone by him. The appellant-Bhuria @ Puran is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
42-Sanjay/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant Bhuria can be reduced to the period already undergone without interfering with the conviction.
How the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding sentence reduction apply to a case pending for a long period.
Whether the appeals of all defendants should be considered equally in light of changed circumstances (death of accomplice, innocence of another).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶36
(2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶36
(1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Bala @ Bal Kishan And Anr
State Of Rajasthan
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
