Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bala @ Bal Kishan And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 306/1994
Bala @ Bal Kishan And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Khushboo Vyas, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
19/07/2022
1. Ms. Khushboo Vyas, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae
to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellant under the
free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and
the accused appellants may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against
them"
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1993 and the present appeal is pending since 1994.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal
has been preferred against impugned judgment dated 18.6.1994
passed by learned Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:38:49 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-306/1994]
Sessions Case 13/94, whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced as follows :-
Bala @ Bal Kishan
Section 308 IPC :- 3 ½ years simple imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
two months simple imprisonment.
Section 324 IPC :- 01 year's simple imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one months simple imprisonment.
Bhuria @ Puran
Section 308/34 IPC :- 3 ½ years simple imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo two months simple imprisonment.
Section 324/34 IPC :- 01 year's simple imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo one months simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that Raju has been
exonerated and Bala has expired whereas allegation upon Bhuria
is that he caught hold of Shivlal.
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of Court to the
evidence rendered by Shivlal (PW-3), who was the main injured
person in the incident. The deposition of PW-3 Shivlal reflects that
all of them being small time Thela/Redhi workers had a conflict of
working in same area which resulted into Shivlal being caught by
Bhuria.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:38:49 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-306/1994]
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of Court to
statements of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. OP Sharma,
PW-2 Sitaram, PW-4 Omprakash, PW-5 Lala @ Omprakash, PW-6
Brijlal, PW-7 Dr. OP Garg, PW-8 Rajendra Kumar, PW-9 Chhotu
Ram, PW-10 Pratap Singh, PW-11 Hetram and PW-12 Dilip Kumar.
Counsel for the appellant submits that since Bala has expired
and Bhuria was facing allegation of catching hold of Shivlal, while
Bala inflicted knife injury, it would be suffice that the appellant-
Bhuria be let gone in undergone sentence.
6. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence
so awarded to appellants were suspended by this Hon'ble Court,
vide order dated 29.06.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
(Suspension of Sentence) Appln. No.319/1994.
7. Counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
appellant(s) may be substituted with the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the submission
stated that Bhuria is having previous criminal antecedents and,
thus, taking any lenient view shall be detrimental to the interest
of justice. Learned PP also submits that Bhuria instigated Bala to
inflict injuries.
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:-
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:38:49 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-306/1994]
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..."
10. This Court after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing
record finds that small time Redhi/Thela workers were fighting for
their jurisdiction to do business operation in a particular area and
such an altercation resulted into knife injuries to Shivlal, which
was inflicted by Bala while Bhuria caught hold of Shivlal. Since
Bala has already expired and role of Bhuria is such, thus, climbing
down of sentence awarded to the sentence already undergone
shall be appropriate at this stage.
11. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
appellant-Bhuria @ Puran, and keeping in mind the
aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly
allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's
conviction under Sections 308/34 & 324/34 IPC, as above, the
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:38:49 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-306/1994]
undergone by him. The appellant-Bhuria @ Puran 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.
42-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
