Partly allowed

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2023CRLA/2/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed appeal of three appellants, reducing sentences to time undergone, dismissing others, and discharging bail bonds citing long delays and reform.

What did the court decide?

Sentences for appellants 1-3 reduced to time undergone; bail bonds discharged; appeals of other appellants dismissed.

What the court decided

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

2023:RJ-JD:24844

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2/1994

¶4

Sita Ram S/o Bhuana

¶5

Jamna Lal S/o Sri Ladu

¶6

Gheesa S/o Sri Bhuana

¶7

Mst. Mangi W/o Sri Sita Ram

¶8

Mst. Omkari W/o Sri Ladu

¶9

Bhoora Lal S/o Sri Khana

¶10

Jagdish S/o Sri Bhoora

¶11

Ram Kuaar S/o Sri Ladu All by caste Meenas

¶12

All residents of Village Bei Piliya Khet, Police Station Shakkargarh, District Bhilwara

¶13

----Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Rajasthan

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Praveen Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶19

Judgment

¶20

Judgment pronounced on : 04/08/2023 Judgment reserved on : 25/07/2023 By the Court :

¶21

The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(1) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura in Sessions Case No.25/1990, whereby all the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Further the appellants Gheesa, Jagdish,

(2 of 7)

[CRLA-2/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24844

Jamna Lal, Sita Ram and Ram Kuaar have been convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC and appellants Bhoora Lal, Mst. Omkari and Mst. Mangi have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the IPC. The appellants Nos.4 to 8, namely, Mst. Mani, Mst. Omkari, Bhoora Lal, Jagdish and Ram Kuaar, have been ordered to be released on probation, whereas sentences have been awarded to the remaining appellants for their respective offences in the following terms :-

¶26

Offence for which convicted	Sentence, Sentence	Fine and	Default
Section 148 IPC	6 month alongwith default of simple imp	s' rigorous im a fine of Rs.500 payment of fine, risonment	prisonment /- and in 1 month's
Section 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC	3 years' alongwith default of undergo imprisonm	rigorous im a fine of Rs.100 payment of fine, 3 months' ent	prisonment 0/- and in further to simple
Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC	3 months'	rigorous imprison	ment

¶27

The appellants No.7 and 8 were directed to pay Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively as compensation to the complainant.

¶28

Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that the complainant Kalyan (P.W.2) was having an agriculture field in Bei Varda. On 21.11.1989 in the afternoon, he and his son Ram Kuaar were fetching water for irrigation and Mangi (P.W.3), Prem (P.W.4) and Gyarasi (P.W.5) were irrigating the field. The complainant party and the accused party were having some dispute over a land situated at Bei Piliya and due to this enmity, the accused came to the field of the complainant. The

(3 of 7)

[CRLA-2/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24844

man were having lathis in their hands, whereas the ladies were having stones. The accused assaulted the complainant and his son; caused multiple injuries and broke their limbs. When Mangi, Prem and Gyarasi tried to save them, they too were assaulted. Due to the injuries, the members of the complainant party fell down on the ground, and assuming them to be dead the accused ran away from the scene. Shokaran, Ramkaran, Dama and Mangilal came to the spot and took the injured first to the Police Station, from where they were taken to the Shakkargarh hospital and later on they were referred to the higher centers for treatment. Ramkuaar had gained some conscience at the Police Station Shakkargarh, upon which he got registered FIR No.91/1989. The police inspected the place of incident, prepared the spot documents, procured the injury reports, arrested the accused, made recoveries, recorded statements of the witnesses and upon completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.

¶33

The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

(4 of 7)

[CRLA-2/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24844

evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 11.12.1993, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

¶38

After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident pertains to the year 1989, wherein an altercation ensued due to some land dispute and in the heat of the moment, the appellants inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party, but they did not intend to hurt anyone seriously. All the appellants belong to Scheduled Tribe and are hailing from a remote village. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. They have faced the rigor of criminal case for good 34 years and have languished in jail for some time during trial. The appellants No.4 to 8 have already been granted the benefit of probation. Therefore, it is prayed that taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the appellants No.1 to 3 may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶39

Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits and opposes the prayer for reduction of sentence, but does not refute the fact that the appellants have

¶40

(5 of 7) [CRLA-2/1994]

¶41

2023:RJ-JD:24844

¶42

remained behind the bars for some time and that the case is very old one.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record.

¶44

Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction against all the appellants is maintained.

¶45

As far as the question of quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants No.1 to 3 is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1989. There was admittedly a dispute between the parties over a piece of land and fueled by this enmity, the accused in the spur of moment caused injury to the members of the complainant party. The trial took more than 4 years to culminate and thereafter this appeal is pending before this court for last 29 years. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 34 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. They have remained incarcerated for some time during trial and

(6 of 7)

[CRLA-2/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24844

moreover they have faced the mental incarceration for the enormous period of around 34 years as sword of going back to jail was continuously poised over their head. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellants are living peacefully since last 34 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that they have been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail.

¶50

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the appellants No.1 to 3 deserves to be dealt with leniency. They also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellants, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentences imposed upon them for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by them.

¶51

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura in Sessions Case No.25/1990 is affirmed for all the appellants, but the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial

(7 of 7)

[CRLA-2/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24844

court to the appellants No.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 148, 325 read with Section 149 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC is modified to the extent that for each count the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellants No.1 to 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

¶56

Resultantly, the appeal of the appellants No.1 to 3 is allowed in part and the appeal of the appellants No.4 to 8 is dismissed.

¶57

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶58

Record be sent back to the trial court.

¶59

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶60

Pramod/-

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

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

Bhanwari Lal and Anr. Vs State

Amandeep Kaur Vs Jasvinder Singh

R.K. Contractor and Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Inder Singh Vs Mahendra Kumar

Ranveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jamnalal Vs State