Partly allowed

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2023CRLR/758/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition in part, reducing the sentence for one petitioner who had already undergone 15 days of incarceration, while maintaining the conviction and fine amount, citing the time elapsed and trauma of a protracted trial.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

Bheem Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41749]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 758/2004

¶4

Bheem Singh S/o Shri Bhera Ji

¶5

Smt. Bhanwari Bai W/o Bheem Singh Both B/c Rawat, R/o Pathon Ki Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Raj.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Judgment

¶13

02/12/2023

¶14

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 12.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.4/2004 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan in Criminal Case No.310/1992 whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under :

¶15

Offence U/s 419/120B IPC : Three months’ RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶16

Offence U/s 465/120B IPC : Three months’ RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶17

Offence U/s 467 IPC : Six months’ RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶18

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[2023:RJ-JD:41749]

[CRLR-758/2004]

(2 of 4)

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.10.1987, complainant Mst. Lehari Bai filed a complaint before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate inter-alia alleging therein that accused Bheem Singh, who is her real brother-in-law (Jeth), with the connivance of other accused persons fraudulently sold the land of the complainant to Mangilal and Veni Ram and a sale-deed in this regard was executed before the Sub-Registrar, Kapasan.

¶23

The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which, Police registered a case and started investigation.

¶24

After completion of investigation, Police filed challan against five accused persons including the present petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465/471, 467, 120B IPC, which were read over to the accused persons. The accused-persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶25

During the course of trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No defence witness was examined.

¶26

Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused persons including the present petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.

¶27

Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners separately preferred an appeal before the learned

[2023:RJ-JD:41749]

[CRLR-758/2004]

(3 of 4)

appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.10.2004. Hence this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 01.12.2023 received from the concerned Police Station in which it has been mentioned that petitioner No.1 Bheem Singh has expired. The said report is hereby taken on record.

¶33

Since the petitioner No.1 has expired, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as abated qua petitioner No.1 Bheem Singh.

¶34

So far as accused-petitioner No.2 is concerned, at the threshold, learned counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1987 and she has so far suffered a sentence of about 15 days out of total sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.2 for the offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners. The learned PP 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.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41749]

[CRLR-758/2004]

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.

¶40

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1987 and the accused-petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of 15 days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accusedpetitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by her while maintaining the fine amount.

¶41

Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner No.2’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC, the sentence awarded to her for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. If the petitioner No.2 fails to deposit the fine amount, she shall undergo ten days’ simple imprisonment. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. Her bail bonds stand discharged.

¶42

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶43

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶44

279-MS/-

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajuram Iram Vs State of Rajasthan

Champalal Vs Amit Charan and Anr.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Mejar Singh and Anr.

Jaisa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan