Revision petition filed challenging conviction and sentence. Petitioner first died, causing abatement. Court reduced the remaining sentence of the surviving petitioner to the period already undergone and waived the fine.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine waived; petitioner released on bail.
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:32619]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 485/2002
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Praveen Choudhary on behalf of |
|---|---|
| Mr. PR Choudhary | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/10/2023
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No.7/2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners’ appeal, upheld the judgment dated 30.01.2001 passed in Cr. Regular Case No.106/1999 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sadulshahar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under : Offence U/s 341 IPC : One month’s S.I. each.
[2023:RJ-JD:32619]
[CRLR-485/2002]
(2 of 4)
Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ S.I.
Offence U/s 325/34 IPC : Two years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month’s S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that the petitioner No.1 Hanuman Singh has expired on 31.01.2015. Death certificate is also submitted, which is taken on record.
Since the petitioner No.1 Hanuman Singh has expired, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as abated qua petitioner No.1.
Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.1999, complainant Siya Ram lodged a report at Police Station Lalgarh alleging interalia that he used to reside in MES Quarter No.8 with his family in upper floor. In MSE, Hanuman Singh (petitioner No.1) is a painter and Prahlad Singh (petitioner No.2) is a chowkidar and their quarters are situated in the nearby block. It is further alleged that there was quarrel between the complainant and his wife and the petitioners used to intervene in the matter. Due to which, the complainant was enraged with the petitioners. On 22.03.1999 at about 9-9:30 AM, there was scuffle between the complainant and his wife, at that time, both the petitioners came and took the complainant down and beat him with first kicks and sticks. On which, his wife and children intervened and rescued the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to his office, where also the petitioners started quarrel with the complainant. On this
[2023:RJ-JD:32619]
[CRLR-485/2002]
(3 of 4)
report, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 R/w Section 34 IPC against the petitioners and started investigation.
After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 30.01.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2002. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1999 and out of total sentence of two years S.I., the accused petitioner No.2 Prahlad Singh has already served eleven days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner No.2 for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
[2023:RJ-JD:32619]
[CRLR-485/2002]
(4 of 4)
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners 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 courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1999 and the petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of eleven days in custody out of two years of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner No.2.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner No.2’s conviction for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is also waived. The petitioner No.2 Prahlad Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
7-MS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sentence reduction is warranted when a petition has undergone custody but appeals were dismissed due to delay.
Whether the sentence for offences under sections 341, 323/34, and 325/34 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Whether the fine imposed on the petitioner should be waived.
HANUMAN SINGH S/O MUKAND SINGH
PRAHLAD SINGH S/O SHRIMAN SINGH
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
