High Court of Rajasthan allowed criminal revision petition partly. Maintained convictions for offences under IPC Sections 323, 324, 326/34 but reduced sentences to period already undergone by petitioners given long delay from 1996 to 2003. Discharged bail bonds.
Sentences reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; 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.
(1 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003]
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 433/2003
1.Rajji Ram S/o Nand Ram, R/o Khal at present Khotawali Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan | |
| ----Respondent | |
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. A.K. Singh |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order
24/05/2024
By way of filing the present criminal revision petition the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that revision petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioners may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against them and judgment passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh dated 23.4.2002 and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh on 5.5.2003 may kindly be quashed and set asided.”
The Cr. Appeal No. 111/02(10/2003) dated 26.04.2002 filed on behalf the petitioners before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 05.05.2003 while upholding the judgment dated 23.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh in Cr. Original Case No.62/2002 whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as below:
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
[CRLR-433/2003]
| (2 of 5) | [C | RLR-433/2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONVICTION | SENT | EN | CES |
| FOR OFFENCE | |||
| UNDER SECTION | |||
| 323 IPC | 6 mont | h’s | simple |
| imprisonm | ent | and a | |
| fine of R | s.50 | 0/-, and | |
| in default | of | payment | |
| of fine, | to | further | |
| undergo | 1 | month’s | |
| additional imprisonm |
ent | simple . |
|
| 324 IPC | 1 year’ | s | rigorous |
| imprisonm fine of Rs |
ent .100 |
and a 0/-, and |
|
| in default | of | payment | |
| of fine, undergo |
to 3 |
further months’ |
|
| additional | rigorous | ||
| imprisonm | ent | . | |
| 326/34 IPC | 4 year’ imprisonm |
s ent |
rigorous and a |
| fine of Rs | .200 | 0/-, and | |
| in default | of | payment | |
| of fine, | to | further | |
| undergo additional |
6 | months’ rigorous |
|
| imprisonm | ent | . | |
| All substantive sentences concurren |
were order tly. |
ed t | o run |
As per the case of the prosecution, on 07.12.1996, the complainant – Anop Singh, while being admitted at Government Hospital, Anoopgarh, got a parcha bayan recorded, stating therein that the road leading towards the school situated in their village was blocked by petitioner No.1, which was later on got removed by the orders of S.D.M., Anoopgarh. On 07.12.1996, at around 09:30-10:00 am., the complainant along with Maniram, Dalipkumar, Ladhuram, Manfulram and other 5-7 persons were sitting at chowk, when he heard that accused Rajji Ram and coaccused persons were wrongfully restraining people from accessing the aforesaid way/road. Thereupon, reaching the place of incident, accused Rajji Ram, Sanwata Ram, Jeeta Ram, armed with Gandasi and Toka and co-accused Ishar Ram and Chando Bai armed with lathis came around and in unison attacked the complainant and the others.
(3 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
[CRLR-433/2003]
On the basis of the said parcha bayan , an FIR No. 483/1996 was lodged at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar against the present petitioners and other co-accused persons and investigation was commenced. After filing of the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 IPC and upon completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.04.2002 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 05.05.2003.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 27.06.2003 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.96/2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the alternative, has prayed that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences so awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.
Heard.
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
[CRLR-433/2003]
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1996 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira ( supra )
“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
Haripada Das ( supra )
“… considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the present petitioners, this revision petition is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC, the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(5 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003]
[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
9-TarunGoyal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pendency of the trial and suspension of sentences warrant reduction of awarded term to period undergone.
Whether to grant relief without interfering in the merits of the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678Referred¶33
Rajji Ram S/o Nand Ram, Sanwant Ram S/o Lal Chand, Jeeta Ram S/o Raji Ram
State of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
