Lalji vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 16536 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 364/1989

Lalji S/o Mangala Adiwasi, R/o Khadabara, Tehsil and District Banswara

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Trivedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 28/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 29/10/2021

Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated

18.09.1989 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge,

Banswara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions

Case No. 90/1986, whereby the trial Court has convicted the

appellant for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced as

under :-

Offence                     Punishment
392 IPC                         One     year's   rigorous     rigorous
                            imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in

default of payment of fine to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment

The concise facts of the case are that on 19.03.1986, report

was lodged by the complainant Mani lal stating therein that in the

(2 of 4) [CRLA-364/1989]

evening when he went to the forest in search of his cow, he saw a

person was beating Gautam Baba. The said person snatched the

silver ornament from Gautam and ran away. The accused was

chased by the villagers and caught him. The accused told his

name to be Lalji from whom the silver Hansali was recovered.

The police registered FIR and investigation commenced.

After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the

accused appellant. The charges were framed for offence under

Sections 397 IPC by the competent court.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10

witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,

statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No

witness was examined on the defence side.

After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence

produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment and

order dated 18.09.1989 acquitted the appellant from offence

under Section 397 IPC but convicted and sentenced him for

offence under Section 392 IPC as stated hereinabove.

Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the

Trial Court, the accused-appellant has preferred this criminal

appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that

the accused-appellant does not want to press this appeal on

merits. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that

the incident relates back to year 1986 and more than 35 years

have passed. The appellant has remained behind the bars for

about five days and he is now about 65 years of age, therefore,

the punishment/sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by

(3 of 4) [CRLA-364/1989]

the learned trial Court may be considered sympathetically and

may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already

undergone by the accused-appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by

learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that

there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and

learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the

-appellant. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order

passed by the Trial Court may be sustained and sentence awarded

to the accused-appellant by the learned Trial Court be maintained

by this Court.

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..

From the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am satisfied

that learned counsel for the accused-appellant is right in not

pressing this appeal on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant is concerned, it is

not disputed that the appellant has so far undergone a period of

five days so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial

as the occurrence relates back to the year 1986. Since the

appellant is a first offender aged more than 65 years old and he

has remained behind the bars for five days so also undergone

mental as well as physical agony of protracted trial for last thirty

five years, leniency can be shown to some extent. More

particularly, when the injured who was examined as PW/7 has

been declared hostile.

(4 of 4) [CRLA-364/1989]

Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that

the 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 Section 392 IPC is reduced to the period already

undergone by him while enhancing the amount of fine to sum of

Rs. 2,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining

the appellant's conviction for offence under Section 392 IPC, the

sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already

undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby enhanced from

Rs.100/- to Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the

appellant shall undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

Three month's time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial

court. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

261-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)