Partly allowed

State v. Latoor and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLA/406/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition and an appeal challenging a sentence reduction made by the Appellate Court. Considering the 33-year delay in trial, the Court declined to enhance the imprisonment term but enhanced the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 for the remaining accused.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition and appeal are partly allowed to enhance the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 each. Imprisonment remains as originally awarded/undergone.

State Vs Latoor and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49939]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 644/2005

¶4

Madhusudan S/o Mool Chand Kabra, resident of Barundhan, Police Station Talera, District Bundi (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Complainant Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

….Non-petitioner

¶9

Latoor S/o Ramnath, R/o Godegal, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶10

Hazara @ Hazari Lal, R/o Barudhan,District Bundi Rajasthan

¶11

Bhojraj S/o Ramnath, R/o Barundhan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶12

Amar Lal S/o Gopinath,R/o Barundhan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶13

Mahaveer s/o Parmanand, R/o Barundhan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶14

Sitaram S/o Ramnath R/o Barundhan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶15

Nand Kishore s/o Ramnath R/o Barundhan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶16

Gangaram S/o Ramnath, R/o Godegal, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶17

Parmanad S/o Ramnath, R/o Godegal, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶18

Pratapa S/o Ramnath, R/o Godegal, District Bundi, Rajasthan

¶19

----accused-Respondents/Nonpetitioners

¶20

Connected With

¶21

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 406/2006

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Latoor S/o Ramnath, R/o Gadhymal, District Bundi;

¶26

Amar Lal S/o Gopinath;

¶27

Mahaveer S/o Parmanand, R/o Village Basthan District Bundi;

¶28

Gangaram S/o Ramnath;

¶29

Parmanand S/o Ramnath;

[2024:RJ-JP:49939]

[CRLR-644/2005]

(2 of 5)

Ra Pratapa S/o Ramnath; All are R/o village Gadhemal district Bundi Raj.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Agarwal Mr. Amit Punia, PP

¶36

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Jain with Ms. Priyanka Gaur Mr. Yogesh Kalla for Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit

¶37

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶38

Order

¶39

04/12/2024

¶40

Both these matters that is criminal revision petition No.644/2005 and Criminal Appeal No.406/2006 arise out of the same judgment hence, both the matters are being decided by this common order.

¶41

The revision petition has been filed by the complainantpetitioner and the criminal appeal has been filed by the Stateappellant for enhancement of the sentence of the accusedrespondents.

¶42

By filing the revision petition and the criminal appeal, the complainant- petitioner and the State- appellant has assailed the judgment dated 14.06.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1 Bundi (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal Nos.03/2000, 16/2000 & 17/2000 filed by the accusedrespondents against the judgment dated 07.12.1999 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talera, Bundi in Criminal Case No.462/1997 whereby the accused-respondent Pratapa S/o Ramnath was convicted for offences under Sections

[2024:RJ-JP:49939]

[CRLR-644/2005]

(3 of 5)

147, 148 & 326 and Section 323/149, 341/149 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, the accused- respondent Parmanand S/o Ramnath and accused- Gangaram S/o Ramnath were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 326/149 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and the accused- respondents namely; Latoor S/o Ramnath, Hazara @ Hazari Lal S/o Ramnarayan, Bhojraj S/o Ramnath, Amar Lal S/o Gopinath, Mahaveer S/o Parmanand, Sitaram S/o Ramnath and Nand Kishore S/o Ramnath were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148 and Section 323/149, 341/149 & 326/149 and were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each of the accused-respondents have to undergo additional six months simple imprisonment.

¶47

The Appellate Court though upheld the conviction of the accused-respondents, however, the sentence awarded to them was reduced to nineteen days, which they have already undergone and were imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The sentence of the accused-respondents Latoor & Hazara was altered to two days imprisonment, which they had already undergone, with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and remaining accused- respondents to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 326 & 326/149.

[2024:RJ-JP:49939]

[CRLR-644/2005]

(4 of 5)

As regards the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 341, 341/149 of IPC, all the accused-respondents were extended benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶52

During pendency of this appeal and the revision petition, the accused-respondents namely; Latoor S/o Ramnath, Bhojraj S/o Ramnath and Pratapa S/o Ramnath have expired and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024, closed the proceedings against them. Hence, the revision petition and appeal are considered only as regards the remaining accusedrespondents.

¶53

The revision petition and the appeal have been preferred by the complainant-petitioner and the State-appellant for enhancement of sentence imposed upon the accused-respondents as the sentence imposed upon them, has been altered to the period they have already undergone that is nineteen days and two days.

¶54

The incident took place on 24.10.1991, wherein the injured Madhusudan S/o Mool Chand sustained five injuries, including one incised wound on the right hand, which has been opined to be grievous in nature. A period of thirty three (33) years has passed after registration of the criminal case in the present matters. This Court as well as the other Courts have also altered the sentence imposed upon the accused in such type of matters for the period which the accused has already undergone after taking into consideration the long facing trial as well as the appeal proceedings.

[2024:RJ-JP:49939]

[CRLR-644/2005]

(5 of 5)

Taking into consideration the fact that the accusedrespondents have faced the trial and appeal proceedings for a period of more than 33 years, now at this stage they are old aged persons, hence it would not be in the interest of justice to enhance the sentence imposed upon them. However, taking into consideration the manner in which the incident took place and the accused-respondents inflicted injuries to the injured complainant, this Court would like to enhance the amount of fine.

¶59

Accordingly, the revision petition as well as the criminal appeal are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of fine amount imposed upon the remaining alive accused-respondents from 5,000/- to 8,000/- each.

¶60

Each of the accused-respondents shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.8,000/- with the trial Court within a period of three months. The amount, if already deposited against the fine, shall be adjusted and in default of payment of fine within the given period, each of the accused-respondents shall undergo ten days simple imprisonment.

¶61

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file.

¶62

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶63

DIVYA SAINI /1-2

State v. Latoor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Latoor and Ors.

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

Harinarayan Vs State

Radharaman S/O Shri Laxman Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemant Kumar @ Golu S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Krishna Vs State

Raghuveer Singh and Ors. Vs State

Satya Narayan Vs State