Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ali Sher Khan And Ors vs State on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-491/1995]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 491/1995
Ali Sher Khan And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
Mr. Amit Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
your Lordships' may please accept this appeal and quash
and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.10.1995 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Rajsamand and the appellants be set at liberty
forthwith."
3. This Court takes note of the fact that appellant No.1 Ali Sher
Khan, appellant No.2 Gulsher Khan, appellant No.3 Hasan Khan,
appellant No.11 Sattar Khan, appellant No.13 Gaffar Khan &
appellant No.14 Shakoor Khan have already been expired. The
report dated 14.08.2020 indicating the same is already on record.
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:06 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-491/1995]
The appeal to the extent of appellant No.1, 2, 3, 11, 13 & 14
stands abated.
3. So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, the
matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991
and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
28.10.1995, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.113/91 whereby the appellants
were convicted for the offences under Section 148 IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.200/- default of payment of which they were ordered to further
undergo two months additional imprisonment; and for the offence
under Section 332/149 IPC for which except Ali Sher Khan and
Ishaque, all other accused-appellants have been sentenced to
undergo one year's imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- default of
payment of which they were ordered to further undergo three
months additional imprisonment; for the offence under Section
323/149 IPC all accused-appellants have been sentenced to
undergo six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- default
of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo one
month additional imprisonment; & for the offence under Section
332 IPC, accused Sher Khan and Ishaque have been sentenced to
undergo one year' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- default of
payment of which they were ordered to further undergo three
months additional imprisonment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:06 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-491/1995]
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 21.11.1995 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.512/1995.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by them.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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..."
9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:06 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-491/1995]
laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the appellants' conviction under Sections 148,
332/149, 323/149 & 332 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The
appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
93-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
