Partly allowed

Radhey Shyam v. State

Rajasthan HC15 May 2024CRLR/1174/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining conviction and fines, exercising discretion due to protracted trial. The court granted bail with bond conditions for pending potential appeals.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; bail granted with personal and surety bond.

Radhey Shyam Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23107]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1174/2005

¶4

Radhey Shyam S/o Gopi R/o Kholi P.S. Bakani, Distt Jhalawar (Raj.) (At present in Distt. Jail Jhalawar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

15/05/2024

¶13

The present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by Court of Special Judge SC/ST cases, Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No.80/2005, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 23.08.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar in criminal case No.69/1998 has been upheld, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

¶14

“U/s 323 one month SI and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine appellant has to further undergo 15 days SI, U/s 341 IPC one month SI in fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine appellant has to further undergo 15 days SI, U/s 325 IPC one year RI and fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine the appellant has to further undergo one month SI.”

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:23107]

[CRLR-1174/2005]

All sentenced were order to run concurrently. The facts of the case are that on 09.08.1997, the complainant Lalchand filed a complaint with Police Station Bakani, alleging therein that in the evening, he was grazing his buffalo, all of sudden the accused Radhyshyam and Badrilal came and started beating him with a stick due to which he sustained injuries or hearing his voice Kanhiram and Prabhulal came and saved him from the petitioner and Badrilal.

¶19

Upon this complaint, case No.314/97 was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 325 & 34 of IPC and thereafter charges were framed against the Radheyshyam & Badrilal. After charges were framed against both the persons, they denied the charges and claim trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited various documents, thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied their participation in the incident, but no defence witness was examined. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2005 acquitted the co-accused Badrilal from all the charges but convicted the petitioner for the offences as mentioned above.

¶20

Aggrieved by first conviction and sentenced the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2005, hence, this revision petition.

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:23107]

[CRLR-1174/2005]

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to the year 1997 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of around 15 days out of the total sentence of one year. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 325 & 34 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and he submitted that their is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the instant case. This Court has perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as the judgment passed by both the Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner.

¶26

This fact is not disputed of the offence took place in the year 1997 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of around 15 days incarceration, out of the total sentence of one year and he has also suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the overall circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper, if the sentenced awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 & 34 of IPC awarded by the trial Court for the offences and affirm by the appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:23107]

[CRLR-1174/2005]

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for the above offences, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine awarded is maintained. Three months time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. He is on bail. He is not required to surrender to his bail bonds.

¶31

Keeping in view the provisions contained in 437A IPC the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of the bond of the like amount before the Trial Court within a period of three months from today under the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, in case any appeal is submitted against this judgment before the Apex Court with the stipulation that the appellant would appear before the Apex Court after receipt of notice of any criminal appeal or Special Leave Petition. It is made clear that the aforesaid bonds would remain effective for a period of six months.

¶32

Record of the trial Court be sent back.

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

Keshav/19

Radhey Shyam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam 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

Babu Lal Mali Vs Smt Gulab Devi and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Bhanwarlal Vs Gita Bai W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar

Kailash Singh Son of Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Badrinarayan Gehlot S/O Lt. Shri Bhanu Ram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Vs State