Partly allowed

Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC15 Oct 2025CRLR/1005/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan examined a criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence. The Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone by the accused due to the 32-year delay in trial and detention.

What did the court decide?

The sentence awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused; bail bonds cancelled; no surrender required.

Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal and Ors. Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1005/2005

¶3

Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal S/o Anandi Lal

¶4

Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Lal

¶5

Roop Chand S/o Mathura Lal

¶6

Jug Raj S/o Heera Lal

¶7

Shiv Ji @ Shiv Lal S/o Moti Lal

¶8

Mangi Lal S/o Gomada

¶9

Ram Charan S/o Prabhu Lal

¶10

R/o Sevanaya, P.S. Sarola, District Jhalawar

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Shazadi Bano on behalf of Mr. Ali
	Mohd. Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶17

Order

¶18

15/10/2025

¶19

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioners – Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors. against the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2005 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fastrack), Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2005 (Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioners has been partly allowed and while maintaining their conviction as recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to

¶20

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶21

(2 of 8)

¶22

as "trial court") vide Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2003 in Criminal Regular Case no. 472/99 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors.) their sentence has been modified as mentioned below:-

¶23

Accused-Appellant-Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal S/o Anandi Lal :-

¶24

Offence	Sentence modified the appellate court	by	Sentence by the trial c	award ourt	ed
under Section 326 IPC	to undergo 1 year's with a fine Rs.1000/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo month’s imprisonmen	R.I of of to 1 t	To undergo 2 with a Rs.2,000/- in payment of further un months’ impri	years R fine default fine, dergo sonmen	.I. of of to 2 t
under Section 325/149 IPC	to undergo 6 mon R.I with a fine of 1,000/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo month's imprisonmen	ths Rs. of to 1 t	To undergo 1 with a Rs.2,000/- in payment of further un months’ impri	year’s R fine default fine, dergo sonmen	.I. of of to 2 t
under Section 323/149 IPC	to undergo 3 mon R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d imprisonment	ths Rs. of to ays’	To undergo R.I. with a Rs.1,000/- in payment of further und days’ imprison	6 mont fine default fine, ergo ment	hs’ of of to 15
under Section 148 IPC	to undergo 6 mon R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d Imprisonment	ths Rs. of to ays’	To undergo 1 with a Rs.1,000/- in payment of further und days’ imprison	year’s R fine default fine, ergo ment	.I. of of to 15

¶25

Accused-Appellant-Jug Raj S/o Heera Lal :-

¶26

Offence	Sentence modified by the appellate court	Sentence awarded by the trial court
under Section 326/149 IPC	to undergo 1 year's R.I. with a fine of	To undergo 2 years R.I. with a fine of
	Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month’s imprisonment	Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months’ imprisonment
under Section	to undergo 6 months	To undergo 1 year’s R.I.
325 IPC	R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of	with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of

¶27

(3 of 8)

¶28

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶29

	payment of fine, further undergo month's imprisonme	to 1 nt	payment of fine, further undergo months’ imprisonmen	to 2 t
under Section 323/149 IPC	to undergo 3 mon R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d imprisonment	ths Rs. of to ays’	To undergo 6 mon R.I. with a fine Rs.1,000/- in default payment of fine, further undergo days’ imprisonment	ths’ of of to 15
under Section	to undergo 6 mon	ths	To undergo 1 year’s	R.I.
148 IPC	R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d Imprisonment	Rs. of to ays’	with a fine Rs.1,000/- in default payment of fine, further undergo days’ imprisonment	of of to 15

¶30

Accused-Appellants-Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Lal, Roop Chand S/o Mathura Lal, Shiv Ji @ Shiv Lal S/o Moti Lal,

¶31

Mangi Lal S/o Gomada & Ram Karan S/o Prabhu Lal :-

¶32

Offence	Sentence modified the appellate court	by	Sentence aw the trial cou	arded rt	by
under Section 326/149 IPC	to undergo 1 year's with a fine Rs.1000/-, in defaul payment of fine, further undergo month’s imprisonmen	R.I. of t of to 1 t	To undergo 2 with a Rs.2,000/- in payment of further un months’ impri	years’ R fine default fine, dergo sonmen	.I. of of to 2 t
under Section 325/149 IPC	to undergo 6 mon R.I. with a fine of 1,000/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo month's imprisonmen	ths Rs. of to 1 t	To undergo R.I. with a Rs.2,000/- in payment of further un months’ impri	1 yea fine default fine, dergo sonmen	r’s’ of of to 2 t
under Section 323/149 IPC	to undergo 3 mon R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d imprisonment	ths Rs. of to ays’	To undergo R.I. with a Rs.1,000/- in payment of further und days’ imprison	6 mont fine default fine, ergo ment	hs’ of of to 15
under Section 148 IPC	to undergo 6 mon R.I with a fine of 500/-, in default payment of fine, further undergo 7 d Imprisonment	ths Rs. of to ays’	To undergo 1 with a Rs.1,000/- in payment of further und days’ imprison	year’s R fine default fine, ergo ment	.I. of of to 15

¶33

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶34

(4 of 8)

¶35

Facts of the case in short are that on 13.08.1993, one Prabhu Lal (P.W. 13) submitted a report to the effect that around 7.00 o'clock, he along with his son and grandson were pulling of wood logs towards boundary wall of Sorghum agricultural field. Birdhilal and Dhanna were also present there. Then all the 7 accused persons came with oxen, broke out the fencing and tried to take the oxen inside the fields. When complainant objected, all the accused persons assaulted them. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 64/93 was registered at Police Station Sarola, District Jhalawar for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 & 323 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet against accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 324, 323 of I.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge vide its order dated 23.06.1999 discharged the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sent the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar under Section 228 Crpc for trial for rest of the offences. The trial court framed charges against the accused Bhartiya for the offence under Sections 148, 326, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 of I.P.C., against accused Jug Raj for the offence under Sections 148, 326/149, 325, 324/149, 323/149 of I.P.C and against other accused persons for the offence under Sections 148, 326/149, 325/149,324/149, 323/149 IPC and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 03.12.2003, acquitted the accused persons for the offence under sections 324/149 of IPC but convicted and

¶36

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶37

(5 of 8)

¶38

sentenced them as indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.12.2003, accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which partly allowed the appeal qua conviction of the accused-persons for the said offence but modified the sentence as awarded by the trial court, as indicated above. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶41

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1993 i.e. around 32 years ago; accused-petitioners were between the age group of 22-26 years at the time of incident and now they old aged persons and facing agony of trial for the past about 32 years; accused-petitioners are sole bread earner in their family, belong to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for some time and there is no previous conviction recorded against the them, therefore, they pray that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶42

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has relied upon

¶43

the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib

¶44

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶45

(6 of 8)

¶46

Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2192 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Dana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2007) decided on 19.03.2025 and Ram Dayal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 597/2004) decided on 04.12.2024,

¶47

Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶48

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case.

¶49

Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioners is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners are maintained.

¶50

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of

¶51

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶52

(7 of 8)

¶53

learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioners, who were within the age group of 22-26 years at the time of incident, have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 32 years and remained incarcerated for some time, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioners is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, they are sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now.

¶54

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:-

¶55

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶56

“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.”

¶57

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶58

“…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…”

¶59

[CRLR-1005/2005]

¶60

(8 of 8)

¶61

Consequently, the judgments dated 07.10.2005 and

¶62

03.12.2003 passed by both the courts below conviction of the accused-petitioners are affirmed but the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

¶63

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶64

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial

¶65

court forthwith.

¶66

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶67

Anu-44

Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal 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

Priya Kumari D/O Shri Brahmanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Meena S/O Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sureshchand Jain S/O Shri Khayali Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyamlal Meena S/O Ramphool Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shobhagmal Meena S/O Surajmal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Noor Khan Vs State