Partly allowed

Bhoop Singh and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC16 May 2024CRLR/602/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the conviction and sentence are affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the term already undergone due to prolonged incarceration since 1995. The fine is maintained, and the petitioners are on bail pending deposit of fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the term already undergone; fine maintained; two months granted to deposit fine; petitioners on bail with bond cancellation.

Bhoop Singh and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22188]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 602/2004

¶4

Bhoop Singh S/o Munshi Ram R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District (Presently lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)

¶5

Munshi Ram S/o Jawahar Ram R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District (Presently lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh) 3. Khilu Ram S/o Shrichand R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District (Presently lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kulwant Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment

¶12

16/05/2024

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report in which it has been mentioned that petitioner No.2-Munshi Ram expired on 25.12.2022 and death certificate in this regard has also been filed. The said report is hereby taken on record.

¶14

Hence, the criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner No.2-Munshi Ram is dismissed as abated.

¶15

By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.2/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class Bhadra, District

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:22188]

[CRLR-602/2004]

Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.220/1996 by which the learned

¶20

trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-

¶21

Offence	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of fine
Section 325 IPC (Petitioner No.1)	2 years’ SI	Rs.5,000/-	1 month’s SI
Section 325/34 IPC (Petitioner No.3)	2 years’ SI	Rs.5,000/-	1 month’s SI
Section 323 IPC	6 months’ SI	-	-
Section 341 IPC	1 month’s SI	-	-

¶22

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

¶23

The gist of the prosecution story is that on 18.05.1995, complainant – Ramchandra submitted a report to the extent that today at about 9 AM when he along with his brother was going home for having breakfast and when they reached near house of one Choturam Chamar, the present petitioners along with other accused persons having lathis & axes stopped them and started beating them with the alleged weapons. The petitioner No.1 – Bhoop Singh gave an axe blow on the right side of the head of the complainant. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned.

¶24

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for offences under Sections 325, 325/34, 323 & 341 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.

[2024:RJ-JD:22188]

[CRLR-602/2004]

(3 of 5)

During the course of trial, as many as 5 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 325, 325/34, 323 & 341 of IPC vide judgment dated 05.03.1998 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.08.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

¶29

Learned counsel Mr. Kulwant Singh, representing the petitioners, 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 upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1998. They had remained in jail for about one month after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society. Petitioner No.1 – Bhoop Singh was 21 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 47 years and petitioner No.3 – Khilu Ram was 20 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about about 46 years and they are facing trial since the year 1998 and they have languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their sentence.

[2024:RJ-JD:22188]

[CRLR-602/2004]

(4 of 5)

Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for about one month and except the present one no other case has been registered against them.

¶34

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.

¶35

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the rigor for last 26 years. 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 petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioners have suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is of two months as well as the fact that they 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 petitioners have already undergone till date.

¶36

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.08.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.2/2002 and the

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:22188]

[CRLR-602/2004]

judgment dated 05.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.220/1996 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioners shall be adjusted. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one month’s S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

¶41

The revision petition is allowed in part.

¶42

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶43

Record of the Courts below be sent back.

¶44

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶45

190-Rashi/-

Bhoop Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoop Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Punma Ram and Ors. Vs State

Teja Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

Nana Vs State

Hema Vs State