Partly allowed

Jagdish Narayan v. State

Rajasthan HC15 May 2024CRLR/407/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court maintained the conviction for an offence under Section 326 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the petitioner's advanced age and the case's long pendency.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed; conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; bail bonds discharged; no surrender required.

Jagdish Narayan Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23085]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 407/2004

¶4

Jagdish Narayan son of Shri Birdhilal Malav, Resident of1-Ka-19, Teachers Colony, Kota

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitesh Bagri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment

¶11

Reserved on :: 15^th May, 2024 Pronounced on :: 15^th **May, 2024 *******

¶12

By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, namely Jagdish Narayan has challenged the judgment dt.30.10.2003 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, in Criminal Case No.1140/2003 (1045/2001) whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted the present petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. & sentenced him to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- & in default thereof to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment, while acquitting him from the offences punishable under Sections 452 & 323/34 of I.P.C.

¶13

The petitioner has also challenged judgment dt.27.04.2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge, (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota, in Criminal Appeal No.120/2003 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed to the extent of conviction & partly allowed to the extent of sentence, while modifying the sentence from three years to one year simple imprisonment & enhancing fine from

[2024:RJ-JP:23085]

[CRLR-407/2004]

(2 of 4)

Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- & in default thereof to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.

¶18

As per prosecution case, on 09.03.1993 at around 01:00 P.M. complainant-Dwarkalal submitted an oral report at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota alleging therein that he had gone to the house of Madanlal Malav & as soon as he got down from the motorcycle, the present petitioner & co-accused-Girdhari came alongwith ‘ gandasi ’ & stick. The petitioner inflicted ‘ gandasi’ blow, while co-accused inflicted stick blow and they entered into the house of Madanlal Malav where beatings were also given. Madanlal & Mukat intervened to rescue him. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. He was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

After considering the facts & circumstances of the case and material available on record, ld. Trial Court convicted & sentenced the present petitioner for the aforesaid offences and granted the benefit of probation to the co-accused, namely Girdhari vide its judgment dt.30.10.2003. The ld. Appellate Court vide its order dt.27.04.2004 modified the sentence awarded to the present petitioner from three years to one year simple imprisonment & enhanced fine from Rs.5000/to Rs.10,000/- & in default thereof to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.

¶20

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioner are that the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Court regarding conviction & sentence are patently illegal & perverse to the facts on record. In the special circumstances where the matters are of extremely old pendency & unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits and, thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to

[2024:RJ-JP:23085]

[CRLR-407/2004]

(3 of 4)

the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. The sentence, so awarded to the petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 02.06.2004 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.84/2004. Lastly, counsel submits that he shall not assail the conviction of the present petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition may be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶27

Since the present 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 ld. Trial Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶28

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 1993. The petitioner was aged around 49 years at the time of incident and presently, he has turned about 80 years old. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 30 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial

[2024:RJ-JP:23085]

[CRLR-407/2004]

(4 of 4)

pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 & Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶33

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed , while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offence. The sentence, so awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶34

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶36

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶37

Ashok/

Jagdish Narayan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Narayan 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

Ramdev Son of Shri Shyoji Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumran S/O Ramdayal Vs Mamta W/O Sumran

Vedprakash S/O Ramdayal Vs Engliashbai W/O Vedprakash

Maharaj Singh S/O Fooliram Gurjar Vs Sukhveer Singh S/O Man Singh Gurjar

Manish S/O Satyabhan Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Avish Kumar @ Avinash S/O Shri Ramavtar @ Ramotar Vs State of Rajasthan