Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabat Singh vs State on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLA-406/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 406/1993
Prabat Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. PS Balot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/05/2022
1. In 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 Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"vr% Jheku vnkyr ls ;kpuk gS fd vihykaV dh ;g vihy Lohdkj
QjekbZ tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk nks"kfl) vkns'k fnukad 30-9-93 dks
fujLr Qjek dj vfHk;qDr vihykaV dks nks"keqDr djus dk vkns'k
QjekosaA"
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1993 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 11/05/2022 at 08:00:59 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-406/1993]
30.09.1993, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.97/93 whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences under Section 304 Part-II IPC and
sentenced to undergo four years R.I.
5. Mr. P.S. Balot, counsel for the appellant, submits that alleged
incident happened on 03.04.1993 resulting into a prosecution
under Section 302 of IPC and finally conviction under Section 304
Part-II IPC thereby awarding sentence of four years' rigorous
imprisonment to appellant.
6. Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the
evidence of PW-13 Dr. M.P. Joshi, who deposed that injury no.1, 2,
3 & 4 were mere scratches, whereas injury no.5, 6, 7 & 8 were
bruises.
7. Counsel for the appellant submits that scratches and bruises
shows whole incident to be doubtful, however, injury no.9 as per
postmortem report was the cause of death. Dr. MP Joshi (PW-13)
deposed that the injury was sufficient to cause death but at the
same time the doctor in his examination accepted that the stick
recovered was insufficient to cause injury no.9. The doctor further
says that all other eight injuries could not be the result of the
same stick.
8. Counsel for the appellant thus submits that the medical
evidence does not support the prosecution story and the same
ought to collapse but the learned trial court has proceeded on
presumptions.
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:00:59 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-406/1993]
9. Counsel for the appellant also submits that crucial witness
PW-8 i.e. Ratan Singh has turned hostile and also that there were
inconsistencies in the deposition of the other witnesses.
10. Counsel for the appellant submits that no previous animosity
between the parties has been reported and at best version was
given out that for doing labour work at same place a dispute arose
and the accused refused to take present appellant with him for the
labour.
11. 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 5.11.1993 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.395/1993.
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 opposed on the ground that there
is consistency in the depositions made by the prosecution witness
and also that the injury no.9 was sufficient enough to cause death.
Learned PP submits that already lenient view has been taken by
trial Judge and instead of convicting the accused under Section
302 IPC, the accused has been convicted under Section 304 Part-
II IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment.
14. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:00:59 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-406/1993]
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 perusing record and upon consideration of
statement of Dr. MP Joshi (PW-13), who deposed that out of nine
injuries, four were scratches and four were bruises and only one
injury i.e. injury no.9 was grievous in nature and that caused
death but such injury as per doctor could not have been caused by
stick recovered, thus, creates suspicion in the mind of Court. The
inconsistency in the depositions made and lack of animosity is also
a cause of concern.
16. 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 Section 304 Part-II IPC, as above,
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:00:59 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-406/1993]
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.
17. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
34-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
