Rajji Ram And Ors vs State

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajji Ram And Ors vs State on 24 May, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:22580]                     (1 of 5)                  [CRLR-433/2003]

[2024:RJ-JD:22580]
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 433/2003

1.Rajji Ram S/o Nand Ram, R/o Khal at present Khotawali Tehsil
& District Hanumangarh.
2. Sanwant Ram S/o Lal Chand, R/o 4 K.M. at present 11 L.M.
Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Jeeta Ram S/o Raji Ram, R/o 4 K.A.M. Tehsil Anoopgarh
District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                               ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)             :   Mr. A.K. Singh
 For Respondent(s)             :   Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order 24/05/2024 By way of filing the present criminal revision petition the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that revision petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioners may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against them and judgment passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh dated 23.4.2002 and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh on 5.5.2003 may kindly be quashed and set asided."

The Cr. Appeal No. 111/02(10/2003) dated 26.04.2002 filed on behalf the petitioners before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 05.05.2003 while upholding the judgment dated 23.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh in Cr. Original Case No.62/2002 whereby the petitioners were(Downloaded convicted and sentenced as below:

on 24/05/2024 at 09:16:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:22580] (2 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003] CONVICTION SENTENCES FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 323 IPC 6 month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's additional simple imprisonment.

324 IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

                 326/34 IPC                  4    year's    rigorous
                                             imprisonment and a
                                             fine of Rs.2000/-, and
                                             in default of payment
                                             of fine, to further
                                             undergo 6 months'
                                             additional    rigorous
                                             imprisonment.

All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 07.12.1996, the complainant - Anop Singh, while being admitted at Government Hospital, Anoopgarh, got a parcha bayan recorded, stating therein that the road leading towards the school situated in their village was blocked by petitioner No.1, which was later on got removed by the orders of S.D.M., Anoopgarh. On 07.12.1996, at around 09:30-10:00 am., the complainant along with Maniram, Dalipkumar, Ladhuram, Manfulram and other 5-7 persons were sitting at chowk, when he heard that accused Rajji Ram and co- accused persons were wrongfully restraining people from accessing the aforesaid way/road. Thereupon, reaching the place of incident, accused Rajji Ram, Sanwata Ram, Jeeta Ram, armed with Gandasi and Toka and co-accused Ishar Ram and Chando Bai armed with lathis came around and in unison attacked the complainant and the others.

[2024:RJ-JD:22580] (3 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003] On the basis of the said parcha bayan, an FIR No. 483/1996 was lodged at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar against the present petitioners and other co-accused persons and investigation was commenced. After filing of the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 IPC and upon completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.04.2002 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 05.05.2003.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 27.06.2003 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.96/2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the alternative, has prayed that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences so awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by them.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.

Heard.

(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:16:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:22580] (4 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003] A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1996 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe 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..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the present petitioners, this revision petition is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC, the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

[2024:RJ-JD:22580] (5 of 5) [CRLR-433/2003] Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 9-TarunGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)