High Court reduced the sentence of two convicted petitioners to the period already undergone, citing compromise and time served, while maintaining conviction and fine for the crime of voluntary causing hurt and assault.
Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine maintained; three months to deposit fine; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1103/2007
(Presently lodged in Sub-Jail, Nohar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Bhari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP Mr. SK Poonia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
04/01/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 26.09.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.16/2007 (39/2002) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar by which the appellate court partly allowed the petitioners’ appeal and while affirming the conviction of the petitioners, reduced their sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 01.06.2002 in Cr. Case No.132/1999. Details of the sentence as reduced by the appellate court for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC are as under :
Offence U/s 341 IPC : Fifteen days’ S.I. and fine of Rs.75/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days’ S.I. Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Four months’ S.I. and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days’ S.I.
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:499]
[CRLR-1103/2007]
Offence U/s 325/34 IPC : One year’s S.I. and fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.1998, complainant Indraj gave an oral information at P.S. Nohar to the effect that when he was returning to his home after answering the call of nature, accused-persons came armed with lathi, Barchi and starting beating the complainant and he received several injuries. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused persons for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and started investigation.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323/ 325/34 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.06.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide its judgment dated 26.09.2007 and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC, reduced their sentence. Hence, this revision petition.
[2024:RJ-JD:499]
[CRLR-1103/2007]
(3 of 4)
Counsel for the petitioner has apprised this Court that the petitioner No.1 Daya Ram had expired on 20.12.2007. A copy of his death certificate has also been submitted, which is taken on record.
Since, the petitioner No.1 has expired, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as abated qua petitioner No.1.
So far as, petitioners No.2 & 3 are concerned, at the threshold, counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1998 and out of total sentence of one year’s S.I., the accused petitioner Nos.2 & 3 have already served fifteen days of imprisonment and now compromise has also been arrived at between the parties, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. The original copy of compromise dated 19.12.2023, passed over to this Court during the course of arguments, is hereby taken on record.
Counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, however, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and 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.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:499]
[CRLR-1103/2007]
(4 of 4)
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1998 and the petitioners No.2 & 3 have so far undergone a period of fifteen days in custody, out of total sentence of one year, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and moreover, compromise has also been arrived at between the parties. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that the petitioners No.2 & 3 have remained behind the bars for a considerable time and compromise has also been arrived at between the parties, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC and as reduced by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners No.2 & 3 while maintaining the fine amount.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners No.2 & 3’s conviction for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the appellate court is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners No.2 & 3 shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The petitioners No.2 & 3 are on bail. They need not surrender. their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
128-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence required to be reduced in view of the compromise between the parties considering the time served and unduly delayed proceedings.
Whether the conviction should be maintained while granting bail and discharging bail bonds.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Daya Ram S/o Shri Manphool Ram
Balkar @ Balwant S/o Shri Manphool Ram
Sonu @ Sushil S/o Shri Daya Ram
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
