Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwat Singh @ Bhaggu vs State on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-387/1991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 387/1991
Bhagwat Singh @ Bhaggu
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sumeha Kalla for Mr. Sanjay
Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/05/2022
1. In the 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 the 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, humbly prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to accept
this appeal and set aside the judgment dated 29.11.1991"
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1986 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1991.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
29.11.1991, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2,
(Downloaded on 06/05/2022 at 08:13:07 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-387/1991]
Udaipur in Sessions Case 51/87 whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo 03 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100, default of payment
of which he was ordered to further undergo 15 days S.I.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has effectively made out a
case that the appellant was acquitted under the Arms Act and
therefore, the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. automatically
weakened. Learned counsel has further pointed out from the
statement of Narendra PW-5 and Gopal PW-8, who were said to be
the eye-witnesses and have not supported the prosecution story.
Learned counsel further submits that tea stall owner is the best
witness as the place of incident was in front of his shop and when
examined as PW-3 also could not support the prosecution story
and thus, the case itself fails.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.12.1991 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application (SOS) No.369/1991.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. 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
(Downloaded on 06/05/2022 at 08:13:07 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-387/1991]
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..."
9. This Court after seeing the record and hearing submissions
of learned counsel for the parties finds that it is a fit case on
merits for maintaining the conviction but at the same time looking
into the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the sentence awarded to the present appellant requires
to be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
10. In light of aforesaid observation and keeping in mind the
aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly
allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's conviction
under Sections 307 I.P.C., 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.
39-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
