Sunil @ Ravi @ Leela vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23791)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil @ Ravi @ Leela vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23791) on 24 May, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:23791]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1399/2023

Sunil @ Ravi @ Leela S/o Dhan Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
Paldi, P.s. Esana, At Present Jatav Road, Mukija Colony, Pipalwali
Gali No. 11, P.s. Model Town Dist. Panipat (Haryana). (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Thana Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment 24/05/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Desuri, District Pali in Sessions Case No.82/2021 (33/2010) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 307/34 & 394/34 IPC and sentenced him as under :

Offence          Sentence         Fine & default sentence
Sec. 307/34 7 years RI           Rs.5,000/- & in default of payment,
IPC                              undergo 1 year RI
Sec. 394/34 7 years RI           Rs.5,000/- & in default of payment,
IPC                              undergo 1 year RI

Brief facts of the case are that on 08.01.2010, complainant Chunni Lal submitted a written report to SHO, PS Sadari to the effect that his brother-in-law Gulab Ram after closing his jewellery (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:41:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23791] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1399/2023] shop, was going to his home on a motorcycle along with the a jewellery bag. On the way, three unknown persons came on a motorcycle and tried to snatch the jewellery bag from Gulab Ram. The accused persons assaulted Gulab Ram by lathi on his head and hand and also fired by a revolver. The accused persons fled away upon failing to snatch away the said jewellery bag. On the said report, Police registered a case and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including appellant before the trial court. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited certain documents in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.07.2023 convicted the present appellant for offence under Sections 307/34 394/34 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

At the threshold, counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2010 and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about six years and six months, out of total sentence of seven years R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 307/34 & 394/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:41:03 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:23791] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1399/2023] On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant 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 trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2010 and the accused-appellant has so far undergone a period of about six years and six months incarceration, out of total sentence of seven 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-appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 307/34 & 394/ 34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 307/34 & 394/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 1-MS/-

(Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:41:03 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)