Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kashi Ram vs State on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-149/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 149/1994
Kashi Ram
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SG Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, 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:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly
be accepted and the conviction and sentences passed against him may kindly
be set aside and the accused appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled
against him."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1994.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
25.03.1994, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
(Downloaded on 09/05/2022 at 08:09:24 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-149/1994]
Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar Camp Karanpur in Sessions Case
No.26/91 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences
under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I.
and a fine of Rs.1000/- default of payment of which he was
ordered to further undergo six months S.I.
5. 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 02.05.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence No.157/94.
6. Mr. S.G.Ojha, counsel for the appellant, submits that the
incident is of 18.8.1988 when it is alleged that the accused-party
attacked the complainant with arms and ammunition, which
included a 12-bore gun. Counsel for the appellant submits that
there is no recovery of weapon. PW-1 Chand Singh & PW-2
Gurubachan Singh have not supported the prosecution case.
7. Counsel for the appellant, however, made 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.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
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:-
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
(Downloaded on 09/05/2022 at 08:09:24 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-149/1994]
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 takes note of the submissions and has also
perused record of case and finds that crucial witnesses PW-1
Chand Singh & PW-2 Gurubachan Singh were declared hostile.
The only witness, who supported prosecution case i.e. PW-5
Mitthu Singh was the injured witness. The gun itself was not
recovered. Looking into overall circumstances, observations and
submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the crucial
witness turning hostile and the weapon of crime not being
recovered are the sufficient reasons for making limited
intervention of this Court and, thus, while maintaining conviction
of accused-appellant, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to
him is reduced to the period already undergone, however, the fine
amount is doubled i.e. Rs.2,000/-.
11. 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 307 IPC, as above, the
(Downloaded on 09/05/2022 at 08:09:24 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-149/1994]
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.
38-nirmala/Sanjay-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
