Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajmer Singh @ Balu And Ors vs State on 27 July, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 631/2011
Chand @ Rafi @ Yunus And Anr.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 402/2011
Gurmeet Singh And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455/2011
Bitu
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 913/2014
Ajmer Singh @ Balu And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Sharma
Mr. K.R. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 27/07/2022 (Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:31 PM) (2 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011] S.B. Crl. Appeal No.631/2011 (Chand @ Rafi @ Yunus & Anr. Vs. State) The appellant No.2 has expired.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant No.1 has undergone six years and nineteen days. Custody Certificate is taken on record.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It, is therefore most humbly prayed that the Cr. Appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and appellant may kindly be acquitted for the offences u/s 395, 397, 458, 342, 148 IPC and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge (F.T.) no 1 Bikaner in Sessions case no. 09/09) State v/s Gurmeet Sing & Ors."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2008 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2011.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case 09/09, whereby the appellant Chand Singh was convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 458, 342, 395 and 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo as under:-
Under Sections 395 7-7 years' R.I. with In default payment & 397 IPC fine of Rs.1000/- for of fine 2 months' R.I. each offences to each offences Under Section 458 5 years' R.I. with In default payment IPC fine of Rs.1000/- of fine one month's each R.I. Under Section 148 1 year's R.I. with In default payment IPC fine of Rs.500/- of fine 1 month's each R.I. (Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:31 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011] Under Section 342 6 months' R.I. IPC All the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 04.03.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.108/2015.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. 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:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "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."
Haripada Das (Supra) "...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 (Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:31 PM) (4 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011] be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant- Chand Singh, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 148, 458, 342, 395 and 397 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
S.B. Crl. Appeal No.402/2011 (Gurmeet Singh & Ors. Vs. State)
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It, is therefore most humbly prayed that the Cr. Appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and appellant may kindly be acquitted for the offences u/s 395, 397, 458, 342, 148 IPC and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge (F.T.) no 1 Bikaner in Sessions case no. 09/09) State v/s Gurmeet Sing & Ors."
2. The appellant No.1 Gurmeet Singh has expired.
3. The appellants No.2 & 3 Ajmer Singh and Rocky have served six years and nineteen days of sentence in lieu of seven years' sentence.
4. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2008 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2011.
(Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:31 PM)
(5 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011]
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case 09/09, whereby the appellants-Ajmer Singh and Rocky were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 458, 342, 395 and 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo as under:-
Under Sections 395 7-7 years' R.I. with In default payment & 397 IPC fine of Rs.1000/- for of fine 2 months' R.I. each offences to each offences Under Section 458 5 years' R.I. with In default payment IPC fine of Rs.1000/- of fine one month's each R.I. Under Section 148 1 year's R.I. with In default payment IPC fine of Rs.500/- of fine 1 month's each R.I. Under Section 342 6 months' R.I. IPC All the sentences shall run concurrently.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 04.03.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.108/2015.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants-Ajmer Singh and Rocky may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 (Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:31 PM) (6 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011] SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "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."
Haripada Das (Supra) "...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..."
10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants Ajmer Singh and Rocky, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants (Ajmer Singh and Rocky) conviction under Sections 148, 458, 342, 395 and 397 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants (Ajmer Singh and Rocky) are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The appeal of the appellant-
Gurmeet Singh stands abated as he has expired.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:32 PM)
(7 of 7) [CRLA-631/2011] S.B. Crl. Appeal No.455/2011 (Bittu Vs. State) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant Bittu has expired. The death certificate has already been taken on record by this Court in the appeal of Ajmer Singh.
In view of the above this appeal stands abated and the same is accordingly dismissed.
S.B. Crl. Appeal No.913/2014 (Ajmer Singh @ Balu & Ors. Vs. State) Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for custody certificate.
List after two weeks.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
53-NS/suraj/-
(Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:58:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)