Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanji And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 82/1994
1. Kanji son of Shri Nanura, by caste Adivasi, resident of
Manpura, P.S. Ambapura, Distt. Banswara.
2. Dhanji son of Shri Nanura, by caste Adivas, r/o Manpura,
P.S. Ambapura, Distt. Banswara.
3. Kaliya son of Shri Nanura, by caste Adivasi, R/o Manpura,
P.S. Ambapura, Distt. Banswara.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mool Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/10/2021
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant
No.1-Kanji and appellant No.2-Dhanji expired during the pendency
of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report dt. 28.10.2021
received from the SHO, Police Station Abapura, Distt. Banswara
mentioning therein that Kanji and Dhanji, both sons of Nanura
expired about 10-15 years back so the present appeal qua the
appellants No.1 & 2 stands abated. Accordingly, the criminal
appeal qua the said two accused is dismissed as abated.
So far as accused-appellant No.3-Kaliya is concerned,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
(2 of 3) [CRLA-82/1994]
appellant No.3 was merely convicted for the offence under Section
323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-; in default of payment
of fine, he was directed to further undergo 7 days simple
imprisonment. At this stage, learned counsel does not want to
challenge the conviction of the said appellant for offence under
Section 323 IPC. However, he has confined his arguments only to
the point of quantum of sentence and submits that the occurrence
relates to 1991 and the appellant No.3-Kaliya has faced the
protracted trial and suffered mental agony during pendency of the
appeal since 1994. Further, he remained in custody from
02.03.1991 to 01.04.1991 i.e. about one month. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the
sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant No.3-Kaliya
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned public prosecutor submits that the sentence
awarded by the court below cannot be said to be disproportionate,
on the contrary, the same is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
carefully gone through the judgment as also the material available
on record.
In my considered view, since the appellant No.3 suffered
mental agony since 1991 and he remained in custody for one
month, the ends of justice would be met if the substantive
sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to
(3 of 3) [CRLA-82/1994]
the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant
No.3-Kaliya.
Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellant No.3-Kaliya for the offences under
Section 323 IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence
of imprisonment awarded by the court below to the appellant is
reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
So far as fine amount is concerned, the amount of fine i.e. Rs.50/-
imposed by the trial court is enhanced to Rs.500/-. Three months
time is granted to the appellant No.3-Kaliya to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. The said appellant is on bail. His bail
bonds stand discharged.
Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
81-NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
