Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Darshan Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:2663) on 17 January, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:2663]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 569/2002
1. Darshan Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh, B/c Rai Sikh, R/o 67,
LNP, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Jarnail Singh S/o Shri Pritam Singh, B/c Rai Sikh, R/o 67, LNP,
Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 17/01/2024 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.6/2002, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 10.04.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur, in Cr. Case No.21/2002, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner No.2, namely Jarnail Singh, as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC 1 month SI Rs.50/- 5 days SI
3. 323/34 IPC 6 months SI Rs.100/- 15 days SI
4. 326/34 IPC 2 years RI Rs.200/- 1 month SI
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:28:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:2663] (2 of 4) [CRLR-569/2002]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2001, the complainant Nand Singh gave parcha bayan at Government Hospital to the effect that on 22.11.2001 when he was returning to his home, accused- persons came armed with gandasi & lathi 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 persons for offences under Sections 341, 323, 326/34 IPC before the trial court. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-persons, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 10.04.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 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 10.07.2002. Hence this revision petition.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 16.01.2024 received from the SHO, Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar informing that petitioner No.1 Darshan Singh has (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:28:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:2663] (3 of 4) [CRLR-569/2002] expired on 08.07.2020. A copy of death certificate is also annexed with the report. The said report is hereby taken on record.
Since, petitioner No.1 Darshan Singh has expired, therefore, the present revision petition qua him is dismissed as abated.
So far as, petitioner No.2 Jarnail Singh is concerned, at the threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2001 and the petitioner No.2 has so far suffered a sentence of about two months, out of total sentence of two years' R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused- petitioner No.2 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 326/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
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 2001 and the accused-petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of about two months incarceration, out of total sentence of two years' R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:28:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:2663] (4 of 4) [CRLR-569/2002] awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 326/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner No.2 for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 326/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is also hereby waived. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 186-MS/-
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:28:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)