Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash And Ors vs State on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-800/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 800/2001
Om Prakash And Ors
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
13/07/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the
is appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgement
of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.11.2001 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh
in Criminal Appeal No.43/2001 be quashed and set aside
consequently the appellants may be acquitted from the
charges levelled against them."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2001.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
03.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Ratangarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No.43/2001
(Downloaded on 13/07/2022 at 08:52:42 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-800/2001]
(46/95 of ADJ, Ratangarh), whereby the appellants no.2 to 4
have been given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act and appellant no.1 was convicted for the offences under
Sections as under:-
Section Sentence
Section 307 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of
which he was ordered to further
undergo one years' R.I.
Section 324 IPC Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.200/- in default of payment of
which he was ordered to further
undergo one months' R.I.
Section 447 IPC Three months' S.I. and a fine of
Rs.100/- in default of payment of
which he was ordered to further
undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Section 148 IPC One years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.100/- in default of payment of
which he was ordered to further
undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Section 27 of the Indian Three yearss R.I. and a fine of
Arms Act Rs.100/- in default of payment of
which he was ordered to further
undergo fifteen days' R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
incident is of 14.07.1997. Learned counsel further submits that
the nature of the injuries were not dangerous to life and also none
of them were on vital part. Learned counsel also submits that the
appellant no.1 underwent custody of about 14 months during trial.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that since
the appellants No.2, 3 & 4 were granted benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, he does not press the
appeal to that extent, but he presses for the appellant no.1 that
sentence awarded to him may be substituted with the period of
(Downloaded on 13/07/2022 at 08:52:42 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-800/2001]
sentence already undergone by him looking into the peculiar facts
and circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant no.1 was however
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 09.11.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (SOS) No.626/2001.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, makes a submission
that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the
sentence awarded to the appellant no.1 may be substituted with
the period of sentence already undergone by him.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submission and in
alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellant
no.1, which may be directed to be released to the injured person,
who is Mula Ram.
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
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
(Downloaded on 13/07/2022 at 08:52:42 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-800/2001]
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. This Court on conjoint reading of the facts that the only
injury was on right leg and also the fact that the appellant no.1
has undergone the 14 months custody and on reading of other
witnesses, particularly PW-1 Kunana Ram, PW-2 Bhanwar Lal, PW-
3 Manohari, PW-4 Mularam, PW-5 Dr. P.C. Kachwal, is convinced
that the prayer of the counsel for the appellant ought to be
accepted, while imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- upon appellant
No.1. The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial
court within a period of three months from today and the same
shall be released to the injured Mula Ram thereafter.
11. 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 conviction of appellant no.1 under Sections 307,
324, 447, 148 IPC and Section 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms
Act, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
22-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
