[2023:RJ-JP:22296]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 489/1987
Manohari S/o Rewadya, Resident of Village Sipni, P.S. Manpur,
District Jaipur. (at present in sub-jail, Dausa)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through G.A.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary with Ms. Pooja Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 12/09/2023 This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No.32/1984: State of Rajasthan versus Manohari whereby, the accused-appellant (for brevity, "the appellant") has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section 304 Part II IPC:- 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹4,000/-; in default thereof, one and half years' rigorous imprisonment.
The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 13.04.1984 (Exhibit-P-2) came to be lodged by complainant Shri Phoolchand (PW-2) with the Police Station Manpur, District Jaipur alleging therein that the appellant has inflicted a lathi blow on the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:56:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22296] (2 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987] head of his mother resulting into her death whereupon, an FIR no.59/1984 under Section 302 IPC was registered against him.
After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against him. After committal, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under the aforesaid provision. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. The learned trial Court has, after trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 as stated hereinabove.
Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 39 and half years old, the appellant, who was aged about 28 years at that time, is 67 years of age today and has already remained in custody for a period of about ten months and ten days. He, in the aforesaid circumstances, submits that he would be contended if, while maintaining the conviction, sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered.
The incident is dated 13.04.1984, the appellant, who, as per the arrest memo (Ex-P-7) dated 15.04.1984 was aged about 28 years, is now aged about 67 years and has remained in custody pre-conviction for a period of about 9 months and post-conviction for a period of about 1 month and 10 days before sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 09.12.1987. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:56:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22296] (3 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987] Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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..."
Their Lordships, have held in case of, Panchashila Dada Messhram versus State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 81, as under:-
"8. However, as far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that at the time of incident, the appellant was in advanced stage of her pregnancy and had given (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:56:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22296] (4 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987] birth to a girl child which had expired soon after the birth. The evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates that the husband of the appellant was coming near the bathroom with a cane so as to prevent the deceased from coming out of the bathroom. Such an act is not attributed to the appellant at all. As on today, the appellant is of more than 67 years of age. The record further indicates that the appellant has also a major daughter, who was aged 10 years at the time of the incident and a son. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."
This Court has also, vide judgment dated 31.08.2023 in case of Gurudyal Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.83/1989, in the case of conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, in identical facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction, has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:56:57 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22296] (5 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987] In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.10.1987, the sentence awarded to him under Section 304 Part II IPC is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone. However, he shall deposit the fine within a period of two months from today failing which he shall serve the default sentence and trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.
Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/272 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:56:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)