Dilip Singh and Ors. Vs State

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:27210]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 445/2006

¶4

Dilip Singh son of Shri Hari Singh,

¶5

Bhawani Singh son of Shri Raghuveer Singh,

¶6

Both residents of Village Punana Police Station Harmada, Jaipur 3. Vikram Singh son of Shri Madan Singh, R/o Vatarupra Police Station Harmada, Jaipur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Namonarayan Meena, Adv. for Mr. Biri Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

16/07/2025

¶15

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2005 and the present criminal appeal is pending since the year 2006.

¶16

This criminal appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.04.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST, (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Jaipur in Sessions Case No.15/2006, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant as under:-

¶17

Under Section 341 of IPC:-

¶18

Seven days simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 2 days simple imprisonment.

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:27210]

[CRLA-445/2006]

Under Section 323/34 of IPC:-

¶23

Three months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment to each accused-appellants.

¶24

Under Section 427 of IPC:-

¶25

Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 02 days simple imprisonment to each accused-appellants.

¶26

Under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act:-

¶27

Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment to each accused-appellants.

¶28

All sentences shall run concurrently.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the sentence so awarded to the appellants were suspended by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2006.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants namely- Dilip Singh, Bhawani Singh and Vikram Singh have remained in custody for a period of 18 days, 10 Days and 10 Days respectively and a limited prayer has been made in the appeal, that the sentence awarded to the present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of any relief. 6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

[2025:RJ-JP:27210]

[CRLA-445/2006]

(3 of 3)

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶36

“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.”

¶37

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶38

“…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…”

¶39

Keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this court deems it appropriate to allow the present criminal appeal. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323 read with 34 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, the sentences awarded to appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon them within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The appellants are on bail and they need not to surrender. Accordingly, the bail bonds executed by appellants stand discharged.

¶40

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-13

Dilip Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Singh Bhati S/O Shri Dharampal Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Priti Sain D/O Naresh Kumar Sain Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman S/O Laduram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kalyan Vs State and Anr.

Liyakat Ali Vs State

Pramod Singh S/O Balveer Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan