Partly allowed

Mohd. Yunus v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2024CRLA/580/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed the criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Conviction under Section 308 IPC (read with Section 34 IPC) was maintained. Appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in an acid attack case pending for 30 years co-appellant appeal abated.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; conviction maintained; fine imposed; bail bonds discharged; appeal partially allowed.

Mohd. Yunus Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9295]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 580/1994

¶4

Mohammad Yunus S/o Shri Bashir Mohammad, R/o Kethun, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶5

Bashir Mohammad S/o Shri Rahim, R/o Kethun, District Kota, Rajasthan .... (Vide order dated 04.07.2023, this appeal appeal stood abated to the extent of appellant No.2 as the appellant has expired)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP Mr. Asgar Khan, for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

14/02/2024

¶14

Vide judgment dated 28.10.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota in Sessions Case No.163/91, the appellants Nos. (1) Mohammad Yunus and (2) Bashir Mohammad (since expired) have been convicted and Sentenced as under:-

¶15

Accused Appellant :- Mohammad Yunus

¶16

Offence under Section	Sentences	Fine	Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine
308 IPC	3 years' RI	Rs.1500/-	3 month’s Additional S.I

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:9295]

[CRLA-580/1994]

Accused Ap	pellant :- Bash	ir Mohamma	d
Offence under	Sentences	Fine	Sentence in lieu of default of payment
Section			of fine
308/34 IPC	3 years' RI	Rs.1500/-	3 month’s Additional S.I.

¶21

They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court.

¶22

Counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 Bashir Mohammad expired on 15.01.2014 and thus, vide order dated 04.07.2023, the instant appeal stood abated to his extent.

¶23

Counsel for the appellant further submits that vide order dated 23.11.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.590/1994, the execution of sentence awarded to appellant was suspended.

¶24

Counsel for the appellant, submits that the incident happened suddenly, in a heat of passion. He however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant(s) may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the submission stated that appellant threw acid on the complainant and his son, knowing the fact that this may cause death and, thus, taking any lenient view shall be detrimental to the interest of justice.

¶26

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2SCC 648 and

[2024:RJ-JP:9295]

[CRLA-580/1994]

(3 of 4)

Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶31

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶32

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accusedon proof of crime. The courts have evolved certainprinciples: twin objective of the sentencing policy isdeterrence and correction. What sentence would meet theends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances ofeach case and the court must keep in mind the gravity ofthe crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and allother attendant circumstances.”

¶33

Haripada Das (Supra)“

¶34

“..considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as farback as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”

¶35

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and this appeal is pending since 1994. This Court after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record finds that on account of land dispute between the parties, the incident occurred. The appellant Bashir Mohammad has already expired and the instant appeal to his extent has already stood abated.

[2024:RJ-JP:9295]

[CRLA-580/1994]

(4 of 4)

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant but has prayed for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. The appellant has been behind the bars for nearly five months and eleven days, out of the maximum sentence of three years awarded to him by the learned trial court. The appellant is in the corridors of court for the last 33 years and presently, he is 57 years old. Thus, looking to the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶40

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant-Mohammad Yunus, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 308 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The appellant- Mohammad Yunus is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶41

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶42

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶43

CHARU SONI /45

Mohd. Yunus v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yunus v. State

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

Devendra Raj Jain S/O Paraschand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Barkat Ali S/O Haji Nijamuddin, Vs State of Rajasthan

Salman Khan S/O Haider Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Pal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gajraj Singh S/O Shambhu Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.