Partly allowed

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2024CRLR/1045/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court declined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for IPC Section 326 but modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting the protracted trial duration and the petitioner's long-term incarceration.

What did the court decide?

The quantum of sentence reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner on bail; bail bonds discharged; no order to surrender.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:47348]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1045/2006

¶4

Bhanwar Lal son of Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 34 years, Resident of House No. 1275, Tatkaleshwarpuri, Chokdi, Gangapole, Jaipur

¶5

(Presently confined at Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Z.A. Naqvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Rabiya Mateen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

20/11/2024

¶14

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner - Bhanwar Lal against Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2006 passed by Special Judge, Special Court (Prevention of Sati), Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 295/2006 (Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 04.05.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:47348]

[CRLR-1045/2006]

of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment, was dismissed.

¶19

Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report submitted by complainant - Laxminarayan (P.W. 3) with respect to an incident, which occurred on 13.11.1988, F.I.R. No.532/1988 was registered at Police Station Ramganj, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 451 & 324 of I.P.C. During investigation, police added Section 326 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accusedpetitioner for the offences under Sections 324, 452 & 326 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges under Sections 452 & 326 of I.P.C. and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 04.05.2000 acquitting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.05.2000, accusedpetitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 05.09.2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts

[2024:RJ-JP:47348]

[CRLR-1045/2006]

(3 of 5)

below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1988 i.e. more than 36 years ago; accused-petitioner was 19 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 55 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 36 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of almost four months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2192 , Murugan vs. State reported in MANU/TN/ 3659/2017 as well as Neelam Bahal & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2010 SC 428; judgment rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kumar Gaurav & Anr. vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi (Crl. Rev. P. 19/2009) decided on 11.09.2023 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Narain vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1267/2005) decided on 04.09.2024, Shambhu Singh @ Shyam Singh & Anr. vs.

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:47348]

[CRLR-1045/2006]

State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 442/2004) decided on 09.10.2024, Prabhu vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 322/2006) decided on 04.09.2024,

¶32

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶33

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶34

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned,after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue as also the fact that accused-petitioner, who was only 19 years young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 36 years

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:47348]

[CRLR-1045/2006]

and they remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶39

Consequently, the judgments dated 05.09.2006 and 04.05.2000 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accusedpetitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified to the extent that sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶40

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶42

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶43

INDER/24

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal 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

Mustak Ahmed S/O Ibrahim Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh @ Radheshyam @ Radhe Gurjar S/O Ramdev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin @ Bhairu S/O Vijaypal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhannaram S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Ansaruddin Vs State

Phool Chand Vs State