Uda Ram And Ors vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6122 Raj

                                         (1 of 3)                  [CRLA-254/1993]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 254/1993

Uda Ram And Ors.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                     Order

26/04/2022

1.    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.

2.    This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred claiming the following reliefs:
     "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal may
     kindly be allowed and the judgment dated 03.07.1993 passed
     by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu passed in
     Sessions Case No.135/92 may kindly be quashed and set
     aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the
     charges levelled against them."
3.    Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there were a

cross-cases and both the parties received injuries. Learned

counsel further submits that both the parties are relatives and

incident happened in a spur of moment. Learned counsel also

submits that there is no antecedent whatsoever against the

present appellant.

                     (Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:40:32 PM)
                                                (2 of 3)                    [CRLA-254/1993]


4.     The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1993.

5.     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal

Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

03.07.1993 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Churu in Sessions Case 135/1992 whereby the appellants

were convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 325,

323, 147, 148, 149, 324 of IPC.

6.     Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by

this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 29.07.1993 passed in S.B.

Criminal     Misc.      Bail     Application          (Suspension         of     Sentence)

No.262/1993.

7.     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.

8.     Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

9.     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


                          (Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:40:32 PM)
                                                                                 (3 of 3)                  [CRLA-254/1993]

                                         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..."


                                   10.     In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the

                                   appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent

                                   laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while

                                   maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 307, 326,

                                   325, 323, 147, 148, 149, 324 of 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.


                                   11.     All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the

                                   learned court below be sent back forthwith.



                                                                     (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

38-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)