Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs State on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLA-149/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 149/1993
Bhanwar Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Subhankar Johari (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/05/2022
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, prayed that your Lordship's will be pleased to
accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence
awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge
No.3, Jodhpur, dated 20.04.93 and accused appellant be
acquitted for offence U/s 307, 324, 323 I.P.C."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1993.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:14:40 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-149/1993]
20.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.41/89, whereby appellant was
convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 324 & 323 of IPC,
and sentence awarded to the petitioner were to run concurrently,
as under:-
Section 307 IPC: Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,500 /- in
default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I.
Section 324 IPC: One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 /- in
default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' R.I.
Section 323 IPC: Three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in
default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' R.I.
5. Mr. Subhankar Johari, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the written report was lodged on
22.03.1989 regarding the incident, which took place at the time of
Holi function, in which, it is alleged that the present appellant
inflicted knife blow upon one Kalyan Singh, the brother of the
complainant, as well as also upon the complainant.
6. Learned counsel further submits that there are discrepancies
in the evidence as the deposition of the witnesses was not
supported by the medical evidence as the injury on the thigh of
Kalyan Singh and on the eye of Sajjan Singh were differently
reported. Learned counsel also submits that in the village, Holi
celebration function was a common place, and thus, there could
have been independent witnesses, which proves that the incident
did not happen as it is reported.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor was very
clear in his opinion that there was no injury, which was dangerous
to life unless of course if any of the injuries remain till date. The
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:14:40 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-149/1993]
suggestion of consumption of alcohol and falling of the
complainant was of course not accepted by the learned trial court.
8. Learned counsel also submits that the version of the
prosecution itself was not fully believed as the other co-accused
Mohan Singh, Hanuman Singh and Bhagwan Singh were all
acquitted and on the same set of evidence, the present accused
person has been convicted.
9. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
towards Exhibit P-4, the complaint; Exhibit P-3, the injury report
of Kalyan Singh; Exhibit P-16, the Forensic report; Exhibit P-17,
the injury report of Sajjan Singh and Exhibit P-29 the arrest
memo.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid facts
create suspicion in the prosecution story, and thus, the benefit of
doubt should go to the present appellant.
11. Learned counsel also submits that the sentence so awarded
to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court,
vide order dated 13.07.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail/Suspension of Sentence Application No.141/1993
12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions on the
ground that the injuries are there and the injured witnesses are
consistent in their deposition.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:14:40 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-149/1993]
14. 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..."
15. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at
length and perusing the material available on record, finds that
though there are discrepancies in the statements and the versions
given by the complainant, but at the same time, the injuries and
the injured witness have withstood the version.
16. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the
learned Public Prosecutor that an injury, which if not treated could
become an injury dangerous to life, has to be treated as
dangerous to life, as it is only an indication that the timely
treatment was required.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:14:40 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-149/1993]
17. However, taking into account the aforesaid observations, this
Court is inclined to grant limited intervention of substituting the
sentence, while maintaining the conviction, substituting the
sentence with the sentence already undergone.
18. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the 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, 324 & 323 IPC, 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.
19. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
29-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
