Partly allowed

Indra Chand v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2024CRLR/1062/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan stayed the operation of imprisonment following a Criminal Revision Petition. The court upheld the conviction for offences under Sections 354/34 and 341 IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, citing the petitioner's age and the trial's duration, and discharged bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

The quantum of sentence was modified to the period already undergone for each count; bail bonds were discharged; and the petitioner need not surrender.

Indra Chand Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:18574]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1062/2002

¶4

Indra Chand S/o Shri Duli Chand, resident of Molisar Bada, Tehsil and District Churu

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

03/04/2024

¶13

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 28.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No.10/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu in Original Criminal Case No.464/1999; whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶14

Offence for which convicted	Sentence, fine and default sentence
Section 354/34 of the IPC	2 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' S.I.
Section 341 of the IPC	1 month's S.I. and a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 7 days' S.I.

¶15

Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.10.1999 at

[2024:RJ-JD:18574]

[CRLR-1062/2002]

(2 of 5)

10.30 a.m. complainant Kumari Maju submitted a written report at the Police Station Ratan Nagar to the effect that on 30.09.1999 at about 04.30 a.m. she went out of the house to attend the natural call and while she was returning to home, Indrachand, Rughnath and Harlal picked her up. When she tried to make a noise, Indrachand covered her mouth. They restrained her forcefully with an intention to outrage her modesty. Hearing her cries, her uncle Prabhu Singh came and saved her. On the basis of the aforesaid, FIR No.110/1999 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and two other persons in the competent court.

¶20

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 354/34 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution evidence, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was produced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner stated above and the appeal preferred against that too has been dismissed.

¶21

After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

[2024:RJ-JD:18574]

[CRLR-1062/2002]

(3 of 5)

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1999. The petitioner was 28 years old at that time and at present he is 53 years old. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial for a period of more than 24 years. He has remained in custody for some time after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶26

Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioner had no previous criminal antecedents and he has remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

¶27

Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

[2024:RJ-JD:18574]

[CRLR-1062/2002]

(4 of 5)

As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1999. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 24 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. It is stated to be the first criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is 2 months' simple imprisonment and he has remained incarcerated for some days after passing of the judgment in appeal. At the time of the incident he was 28 years old and at present he is 53 years old. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioner, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentences

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:18574]

[CRLR-1062/2002]

imposed upon the petitioner are reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶36

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court as well as the judgment in appeal passed by the learned appellate court are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 354/34 and 341 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that for each count the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶37

The revision petition is allowed in part. Stay application and all pending applications are disposed of.

¶38

The record be returned to the trial court.

¶39

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶40

12-Pramod/-

Indra Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Chand 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

Sukhdeep Singh @ Sandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamalsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lucky Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs Meena Vs State and Ors.

Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sardar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan