Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2983) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2983]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1165/2023
1. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Kantilal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Khadiya Vas Sheoganj Ps Sheoganj Dist. Sirohi Raj.
2. Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh S/o Shri Ruparam, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Gali No. 1 Nehru Nagar Sheoganj Dist.
Sirohi Raj.
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Tararam, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Vill. Bhankali Ps Smerpur Dist. Pali Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 16/01/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.32/2016 (CIS No.32/2016) by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC One month's Rs.500/- Three days' S.I.
S.I.
2. 323 IPC Six months' Rs.1,000/- Fifteen days' S.I.
S.I.
3. 325/34 IPC Two years' Rs.10,000/- Three months'
R.I. S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Downloaded on 17/01/2025 at 11:12:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:2983] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023] Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2016 complainant Manish Parihar gave a typed report at Police Station Shivganj to the effect that his father has a shop in Sabji Mandi viz. Nakoda Sabji Bhandar. On 30.05.2016 after closing the shop, his father Shankar Lal alongwith his servant came to his home on motorcycle. When they reached at Azad Chowk, Shivganj at about 10.15 p.m., the accused stopped his father's motorcycle and attacked with lathis and rods. Due to which, his father and servant sustained injuries. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused- appellants and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 307, 341, 323, 325/34 & 307/34 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited thirty- one documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2023 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid and acquitted under Section 307/34 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that they does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2016 and the accused appellant No.1-Vinod Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of about seventeen days, appellant No.2-Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh has so far (Downloaded on 17/01/2025 at 11:12:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:2983] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023] suffered a sentence of about one year, eight months and seventeen days and appellant No.3 Suresh Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of about two months, out of total sentence of two years' R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants 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-appellants.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2016 and, the appellant No.1-Vinod Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of about seventeen days, appellant No.2-Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh has so far suffered a sentence of about one year, eight months and seventeen days and appellant No.3 Suresh Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of about two months' incarceration, out of total sentence of two years' R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that the appellants have remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 325/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
(Downloaded on 17/01/2025 at 11:12:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2983] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023] Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants' conviction for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is already deposited by the appellants. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Application (Inward No.01/24) filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 124-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 17/01/2025 at 11:12:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)