Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hardeva Ram vs State on 27 July, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 43/1990

Hardeva Ram
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Bohra
Mr. Gokulesh Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 21/07/2022
Pronounced on 27/07/2022

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred against the judgment, dated 24.01.1990, passed by the

learned Court below in Sessions Case No. 3/89 whereby the

appellants herein were convicted for the offences under Sections

307, 326, 324 and 450 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R.I. along

with a fine of Rs.50/- in default of payment of which he was to

further undergo 1 month R.I., 2 ½ years along with a fine of

Rs.50/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo

1 month R.I., 1 year R.I. and 2 years R.I., respectively. All the

sentences were to run concurrently.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant

praying that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment

dated 24.01.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Court below in

(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:02 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLA-43/1990]

Sessions Case 3/89 be quashed and set aside, and the appellant

be acquitted of all the charges for the offences levelled against

him therein.

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

1988 and the present criminal appeal has been pending since the

year 1990.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this

Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.02.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Bail Application No. 53/1990.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is

the version of the prosecution that on 01.11.1988 Smt. Vora

Ramjeevan Kumhar at about 04:00 a.m. at Mahatma Gandhi

Hospital, Jodhpur submitted a written report, at Ex. P/4, stating

therein that, on the previous night at about 12:00 a.m. the

accused broke into her residence at Masooria, Santoshpura, where

she was living along with her husband and her grand daughter.

And that, when he tried to enter her grand daughter's room, she

ran out shouting, and intimated Smt. Vora that the accused was

armed with a knife. And that, the accused Hardeva Ram

threatened to kill her granddaughter Ranjana, and stabbed her

with the knife, and subsequently fled the scene. And that, Smt.

Vora and her husband took Ranjana in a taxi to M.G.M hospital,

Jodhpur for treatment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the

testimony of the granddaughter Ranjana, P.W. 6 reveals that the

appellant and her grandmother Smt. Vora were neighbours and

maintained coordial relations. And that, however there was some

(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:02 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLA-43/1990]

dispute regarding the wall between their houses, but that she was

not involved in the same.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

testimony further reveals that the apellant did not threathen

Ranjana on the day of the incident in question, and in the absence

of any knowledge or intention on the part of the accused, the

offences under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. are not made out

against the appellant as the fundamental ingredient of intention,

as required under the said section, is absent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the

incident in question occurred on the land in dispute between the

appellant and Smt. Vora, to which both said parties staked claims

of ownership, and that the appellant was armed with a knife on

the day of the incident, and that Smt. Vora's grandchildren,

Ranjana and Sunil were attempting to take the knife out of his

hand, at which point Ranjana sustained an injury. And that, the

version of Smt. Vora that the incident occurred inside her house

has not been proved by the prosecution.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

testimony of P.W.5 Dr. Dharmendra reveals that the injuries were

not dangerous to life.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited

submission that without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner(s) may be substituted with the period of

sentence already undergone by him.

10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes

the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that

(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:02 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLA-43/1990]

the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned

judgment of conviction against the accused appellant herein.

11. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the

record of the case.

12. This Court finds that the learned Court below has rightly

proceeded with the conviction of the appellant, after recording the

following findings:-

12.1 The appellant contended that there were no independent

witnesses produced to corroborate the version of the prosecution,

could not be accepted as it would not be possible given that the

incident occurred at about midnight, and given that the incident

transpired in a short time span, an adverse inference could not be

drawn to the fact that no other neighbours came out of their

house / intervened / saw what had happened.

12.2 Furthermore, the injury sustained by Ranjana, is a deep stab

wound to her abdominal area, as revealed by the medical

evidence, and therefore the version of the appellant, that the

injury was sustained by Ranjana as an accidental result of the

attempt made to take the knife away from him, is not believable

as the same is highly unlikely.

12.3. Moreover, the F.I.R. was lodged hours within the occurrence

of the incident from the hospital, and it was the contention of the

appellant that the incident did not occur inside the house, but the

same is rendered untrue, as a high volume of Ranjana's blood as

found outside her room inside the house, as was averred by Smt.

Vora, and the same would not have been the case had the incident

occurred outside the house as alleged by the appellant.

(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:02 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLA-43/1990]

13. 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..."

14. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of appellant,

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, 324 and 450

I.P.C. as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the

period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail, in

pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on dated

05.02.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53/1990. He

need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:02 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLA-43/1990]

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

learned below be sent back forthwith.