Partly allowed

Rajendra and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLR/1133/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court reduced the remaining sentence to the period already undergone by petitioners convicted for assault and hurt, maintaining conviction and fine while directing them to furnish a personal bond under Section 481 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with deposit directive; record sent back; personal bond directed under Section 481 BNSS.

Rajendra and Ors. Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50039]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1133/2006

¶4

Rajendra S/o Bhagwan Sahia,

¶5

Pankaj @ Pinky S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai,

¶6

Suresh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai,

¶7

All R/o Village Govindgarh, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar. (Presenetly confined in District Jail Alwar.)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of the Rajasthan through PP.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

04/12/2024

¶16

By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.05/2003 by which the Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners while upholding the judgment dated 16.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.23/05/1998 and the sentence imposed upon the appellants for the charge under Section 325 IPC has been reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.600/- each and in default, further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

[2024:RJ-JP:50039]

[CRLR-1133/2006]

(2 of 4)

Brief facts of the case are that a report Ex.P1 was lodged by the complainant Laxmikant on 25.07.1997 alleging therein that on 16.07.1997, his brother along with his father Shankar Lal, sister-in-law Shakuntala were sitting inside the house, where the accused persons came and abused and assaulted them.

¶21

Upon this report, Crime No.100/97 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 452 IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and thereafter, charges were framed for the above offences. The petitioners have denied the charges and claimed trial and thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied their participation in the instant matter.

¶22

Upon conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated 16.01.2003 convicted the appellants as stated above and sentenced them to undergo two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC with fine of Rs.600/- each and under Section 323 IPC, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-.

¶23

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners preferred criminal appeal before the Appellate Court and the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.09.2006 and the sentence of the petitioners under Section 325/34 IPC from two years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and rest of the judgment was upheld. Hence, this petition.

[2024:RJ-JP:50039]

[CRLR-1133/2006]

(3 of 4)

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction, but submitted that looking to the fact that the occurrance relates to the year 1997 and the petitioners have suffered sentence of almost a month out of the total sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners under Section 325 and 323 IPC be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶28

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is there which calls for any interference of this Court, hence, the revision petition is liable to be rejected.

¶29

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 9. This fact is not in dispute that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1997 and the petitioners have already undergone a sentence of almost one month out of the total sentence of one year and so also, they have suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial, thus looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have remained in jail for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Appellate Court for the offences under Section 323 and 325 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

[2024:RJ-JP:50039]

[CRLR-1133/2006]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands partly allowed while maintaining the petitioners conviction for the said offences. The sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶34

The amount of fine is maintained. The petitioners are directed to deposit the same before the trial Court within a period of two months from today.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶37

In view of the provisions of Section 481 BNSS, the petitioners are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition is submitted against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioners on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

KuD/18

Rajendra and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and Ors. v. State

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

Surendra Kumar S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the Chairman

Income Tax Officer Vs Baldev Sharma S/O Shri Ravidutta

Sanjay Kumar S/O Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukul Aggarwal S/O Shri T.N. Aggarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Alias Lahari and Ors. Vs State

Prahalad Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Jagan Prasad , Vs State of Rajasthan