Partly allowed

Nirbhay Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CRLR/388/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner due to the trial's prolonged duration and his advanced age.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction was affirmed but the quantum of sentence was modified to the term of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.

Nirbhay Singh Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:419]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 388/2001

¶4

Nirbhay Singh S/o Kalu Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Khedana, Police Station Nathdwaram District Rajsamand.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinet Jain Sr. Advocate assisted
	byMr. Devesh Khatri
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

03/01/2024

¶13

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 13.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, in Criminal appeal No.28/2001 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No.152/1993; whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

¶14

Offence for which convicted	Substantive sentence	Fine and default sentence
Section 447 of the IPC	One month’s R.I.	Fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 7 days’ R.I.
Section 326 of the IPC	Two years’ S.I.	Fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s R.I.

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:419]

[CRLR-388/2001]

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.01.1993 at 8:00 p.m. Hukum Singh lodged an oral report alleging inter alia that in the evening at about 6:45 p.m. when he was at his agricultural field (Tapri Wala Khet), Nirbhay Singh S/o Kalu Singh was trying to make water passage/channel from his field to another field. He was holding a spade in his hand and he gave injury by reverse side of it on the head of Hukum Singh, as a result of which, he fell down and blood starting oozing from his head. His younger brother Pratp Singh, Mithu Singh and Mangi Lal intervened in the matter. Thereafter they returned to their house and informed their father regarding the incident and the matter was reported to the police.

¶19

Upon this, a case under Sections 447 and 323 of the IPC was registered. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner. He was taken into custody vide Ex.P/9. During investigation site inspection plan was prepared and it was found that the field in question bearing Khasra No.603 was in joint possession of Bhanwar Singh, Kalyan Singh and Kalu Singh and an old water channel in the north to south part of the field and a new water channel was also there. Injured Hukum Singh was examined and as per injury report Ex.P/4 and X-Ray report Ex.P/5 injury appears to be caused by a sharp edged weapon and grievous in nature therefore, Section 326 IPC was also added.

¶20

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.

[2024:RJ-JD:419]

[CRLR-388/2001]

(3 of 5)

During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 447 and 326 of the IPC vide judgment dated 31.10.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, who vide order dated 13.07.2001 who affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Both these judgments are under assail before this court in the instant revision petition.

¶25

Learned counsel Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh Khatri representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1993. He had remained in jail for 6-8 days after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court and some time in police custody. No other criminal case has been reported against him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a resident of a remote village. He was a young man at the time of incident and presently he is an old man about 62 years. He is facing trial since the year 1993 and he has languished in jail for more than 8 days, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:419]

[CRLR-388/2001]

Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for more than 8 days and no other except the present one has been registered against the petitioner.

¶30

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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶31

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true that the petitioner remained behind the bars for more than 08 days. The incident is of the year 1993 and the petitioner has faced protracted trial for 3 decades. He is an old and poor man. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed 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 circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered more than 08 days out of sentence of 1 year imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:419]

[CRLR-388/2001]

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No.152/1993 as well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No.28/2001 dated 13.07.2001 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice.

¶36

The revision petition is allowed in part.

¶37

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶38

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶39

18-Mamta/-

Nirbhay Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirbhay Singh 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

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Manju Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Idrish @ Bhuria Vs State

Nisar Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan