Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:1576) on 10 January, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:1576]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 482/2003
(1) Babu Lal S/o Hapuram (dead) (His name deleted vide order
dated 25.06.2003)
(2) Shyamlal S/o Javarilal,
(3) Govindram S/o Javarilal
Both B/c Nai, R/o Bala, PS Bilara, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Likhma Ram Upadhaya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 10/01/2024 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 05.06.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.21/1999, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara, in Cr. Original Case No.512/1997, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners No.2 & 3, namely Shyamlal & Govindram, as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 447 IPC 1 month RI Rs.100/- 7 days SI
2. 341 IPC 7 days RI Rs.50/- 2 days SI
3. 323 IPC 3 months RI Rs.500/- 15 days SI
4. 326/34 IPC 3 years RI Rs.1,000/- 6 months SI
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:33 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1576] (2 of 4) [CRLR-482/2003]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.1997, in the parcha bayan it was alleged by the complainant Gordhanram that when he was returning to his home after answering the call of nature, accused-persons came armed with lathi, dharia and started beating the complainant and he received several injuries. On this parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused persons including the present petitioners and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326 IPC before the trial court. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined as DW-1 and certain documents were also exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326, 326/34 IPC.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 05.06.2003. Hence this revision petition.
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1576] (3 of 4) [CRLR-482/2003] During the pendency of the revision petition, petitioner No.1 Babulal has expired and his name was deleted by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2003.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1997 and the petitioners No.2 & 3 have so far suffered a sentence of about twenty five days, out of total sentence of three years' R.I. Further, the main allegation of causing head injury by dhariya was levelled against petitioner No.1 Babulal, who had already expired and the petitioners No.2 & 3 have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused- petitioners No.2 & 3 for the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1997 and the accused-petitioners No.2 & 3 have so far undergone a period of about twenty five days incarceration, out of total sentence of three years' R.I., and so also suffered the mental (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1576] (4 of 4) [CRLR-482/2003] agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners No.2 & 3 have remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is also hereby waived. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 21-MS/-
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)