Partly allowed

Hari v. State

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2025CRLR/106/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC was not pressed on merits. Considering the 30-year protracted trial, petitioner's age and lack of previous conviction, the court affirmed conviction but reduced substantive sentence to the period already undergone and discharged bail bonds.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hari Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2007

¶4

Hari son of Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Gadoli, P.S. Nadbai, Bharatpur

¶5

(At present in Central Jail, Bharatpur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

22/08/2025

¶14

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted the report sent by the S.H.O. Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur.

¶15

As per the report, sole accused-petitioner is alive.

¶16

Report is taken on record.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision petition is heard today.

¶18

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Hari against Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2006 (Hari vs. State of Rajasthan), whereby criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 21.12.2002 passed by Additional Chief

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

[CRLR-106/2007]

Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No. 847/2000 (State of Rajasthan vs. Hari), convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C., was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court is as under :-

¶23

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default
u/s 323 IPC	1 month's S.I	-	-
u/s 325 IPC	8 months' S.I	Rs. 2,500/-	4 months' S.I

¶24

(Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

¶25

Facts of the case in short are that on 05.01.1995, injured Ramsewak (P.W.4) gave parcha bayal to Harbhan Singh, A.S.I. P.S. Chiksana while undergoing treatment at General Hospital, Bharatpur to the effect that while he was returning to his house from the field, accused Bhajan Lal, Hari and Urmila armed with pistol, Farsa and lathi, beaten him and caused injuries on his left leg, hand and thigh etc. On the basis of said parcha bayan, FIR No.10/1995 was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 379 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accusedpetitioner and co-accused Urmila for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 325 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C. and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 21.12.2002 acquitted co-accused Urmila for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced accused-petitioner for the offences under

(3 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

[CRLR-106/2007]

Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2002, accusedpetitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 25.01.2007 dismissing appeal and affirming judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner 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.

¶32

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1995 i.e. more than 30 years ago; accused-petitioner was 32 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 62 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 30 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of fifteen days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶33

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jage Ram

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

[CRLR-106/2007]

& ors. vs. State of Haryana & anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW

¶38

910 and Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 6 SCC 231 .

¶39

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor 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 cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶40

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 as also judgments cited in this case. 13. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner 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-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶41

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 32 years old at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 30 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

(5 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

[CRLR-106/2007]

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister

¶46

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC

¶47

648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶48

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶49

“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.”

¶50

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶51

“…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…”

¶52

After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is 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 him to jail now. Therefore, considering the mitigating circumstance in this case that the petitioner is undergoing agony of this protracted trial for the last 30 years, he can be

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33269]

[CRLR-106/2007]

compensated suitably by reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon him to the period already undergone by him. 17. Consequently, the judgments dated 25.01.2007 and 21.12.2002 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of I.P.C. awarded to the accusedpetitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶57

The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 19. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶58

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶59

INDER/1

Hari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjeet Singh Vs State

Ghanshyam Saini Vs State and Others

Manjur Khan Vs State

Satya Narain and Ors. Vs State

Samay Singh Vs State

Bhagsingh Vs State