Partly allowed

Bhairulal S/O Shri Motilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2024CRLW/1401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal filed to reduce sentence, the High Court maintained the conviction for offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and MV Act but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, citing long trial pendency and old incident date.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; petitioner on bail; bail bonds cancelled.

Bhairulal S/O Shri Motilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39213]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1401/2023

¶4

Bhairulal S/o Shri Motilal, R/o Sanmanpura, Police Station Khatoli, District Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present In Central Jail Kota)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari with Mr. Mahesh Goutam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶11

17/09/2024

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of accused/petitioner being aggrieved by judgment 27.04.2023 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kota in Criminal Appeal No.37/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment dated 04.10.2013 passed by Nyaydhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Itawa, District Kota in Criminal Case No.830/2011, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and 3/181 MV Act as under-:

¶13

under Section 304-A IPC-: Sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to further undergo three days’ simple imprisonment,

¶14

under Section 279 IPC-: S entenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in

[2024:RJ-JP:39213]

[CRLW-1401/2023]

(2 of 3)

default thereof to further undergo three days’ simple imprisonment,

¶19

under Section 3/181 MV Act-: fine of Rs.100/- and in

¶20

default thereof to further undergo three days’ simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.

¶21

All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by him. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Addl. G A 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. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶24

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

¶25

Since the present writ petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

[2024:RJ-JP:39213]

[CRLW-1401/2023]

(3 of 3)

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 13 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

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 writ petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.

¶31

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

MOHD TAHIR ANSARI 160

Bhairulal S/O Shri Motilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairulal S/O Shri Motilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Devi Daughter of Shri Narayan Lal Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Rathore S/O Shri Magraj Rathore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Irshad Son of Rajjak Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaideep Mehta S/O Late Shri Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Baluram Choudhary S/O Kalyan Mal Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Neraj D/O Heeralal Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan