In a criminal appeal against conviction for SC/ST atrocities and assault, the High Court reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused in custody since 1996, maintained the conviction and fine, and discharged bail bonds.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:42377]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 353/1998
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
06/12/2023
Application (1/2023) for early listing of the case is allowed for reasons stated therein.
The matter is being heard and decided today itself.
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 16.05.1998 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.5/97 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
Offence U/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act : Six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment to further undergo 10 days’ S.I.
Offence U/s 323 IPC : Three months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment to further undergo 5 days’ S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.1996, complainant
Arjun Ram submitted a written report at PS Ladnun to the effect
[2023:RJ-JD:42377]
[CRLA-353/1998]
(2 of 3)
that in the morning, when he was in his agriculture filed, accused appellant No.1 Munni Ram came and insulted him by using caste oriented language / filthy language. Thereafter his cousin accused appellant No.2 Bhanwarlal also came with lathies and both the accused-appellants started beating the complainant with lathies. On this report, Police registered a case against the accusedappellants for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Sections 323, 341, 504 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellants for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court. The accusedappellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.05.1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and the accused appellants have remained in custody for quite some time, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
[2023:RJ-JD:42377]
[CRLA-353/1998]
(3 of 3)
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1996 and, the appellants have so far remained in custody for quite some period and have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for quite some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants’ conviction and sentence for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo ten days’ S.I. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
102-MS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by appellants due to prolonged custody since 1996.
Whether the conviction and fine amount should be maintained despite reduction in sentence.
Whether bail bonds should be discharged for appellants already serving sentence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Munniram
Bhanwarlal
State of Rajasthan
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
