Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Padam Singh And Ors vs State on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-450/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 450/1993
Padam Singh And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gulab Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
In 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 Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident
in-question is of 26.01.1991 and already 32 years elapsed sine the
incident has taken place.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
appellant no.3 Kamal Singh and appellant no.4 Mool singh have
already expired, which is also verified by the Public Prosecutor.
Thus, the present appeal to the extent of appellants no.3 and
4 stands abated.
Learned counsel for the appellants No.1 and 2 submits that
appeal survives only to the extent of appellant no.1 and 2. The
appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section 307 & 323/34 of
IPC and appellant no.2 has been given the benefit of Section 3 of
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:05 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-450/1993]
Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that his focal arguments is for appellant no.1, who has
been sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
court towards the injury report, which is Ex.P-8, which clearly
reflects that the injuries were simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter has drawn
attention of this Court to the fact that the recovery was of a
mauser rifle whereas the injuries are similar to that of pellet, thus,
recovery of the arm and usage of arm itself become doubtful.
Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9, which are injuries report, which clearly
shows as simple injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, makes a limited
prayer that this Court may consider the statement of the Doctor
as well as the discrepancies in the fire arm usage as well as the
fact that the matter is 32 years old and all the injuries are similar
in nature, the Court may consider the appeal and the sentence
awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellants were however suspended
by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 10.11.1993 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension (Bail) Petition No.429/1993.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal.
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)
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:05 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-450/1993]
"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..."
This Court on a conjoint reading of the Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 &
Ex.P-9, which are the injury reports reflect that the injuries are
simple in nature and also keeping in mind that the matter is about
32 years old and while taking into consideration the discrepancies
in the usage of rifle, is inclined to provide the relief to the
appellant and sentence awarded to the appellant no.1 is
substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.
This Court, without making any interference on merits and in
light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants, and
also keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, allows
the present appeal. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction
of appellant no.1 under Sections 307 & 323/34 IPC, as above, the
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The appellant No.1 is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The benefit
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:36:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-450/1993]
of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act has already been
granted to appellant no.2 and appellants no.3 and 4 have
deceased, and therefore, this Court's interference is limited to the
effect, as mentioned above, solely with respect to appellant no.1.
All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
73-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
