Suresh Kumar And Another vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6491 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 324/1992

Suresh Kumar And Another

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 52/1993 State

----Appellant Versus Jugal Kishore And Ors.

                                                                   ----Respondent



For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. SG Ojha
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

Mr. Vineet Jain Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

05/05/2022

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.

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 324/1992

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against the appellants. "

(2 of 4) [CRLA-324/1992]

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

1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1992.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal

Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

29.08.1992, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Nohar in Sessions Case No.37/91 whereby the appellants were

convicted and sentence as under:-

Accused Appellant Conviction Sentence NO. 1 (died) to 4 148 IPC One years R.I. to each No.1 (died) 325 IPC Two years R.I. to each and a fine of Rs.200/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I. to eact NO.2 to 4 325/149 IPC Two years R.I. to each and a fine of Rs.200/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I. to eact No.2 324 IPC One years R.I. to each NO.1 (died), 3 & 4 324/149 IPC One years R.I. to each No.1 (died) & 2 323/149 IPC 6 months R.I. to each No.3 & 4 323 of IPC 6 months R.I. to each No.1 (died) to 4 452 IPC Two years R.I. to each and a fine of Rs.200/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I..

No.1 to 4                440 IPC                           1 years R.I. to each
                                                           and    a    fine    of
                                                           Rs.100/- in default of
                                                           payment of fine to
                                                           further undergo one
                                                           months R.I.


                                                (3 of 4)                    [CRLA-324/1992]

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

sentence so awarded to the appellants (No.1 to 4) was however

suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 08.09.1992

passed in S.B. Criminal Bail (Suspension of Sentence Application)

No.358/1992.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited

submission that without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants

may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone

by them. The appellant no.5 was convicted for the offence under

Sections 148, 325/149, 324/149, 323, 452 & 440 of IPC, but has

been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin

Vyas appearing for the complainant has vehemently submitted

that looking into the veracity of the offences, it is fit case where

the appellants' conviction ought to be maintained and they be put

behind the bars.

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 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

(4 of 4) [CRLA-324/1992]

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. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the

appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent

laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while

maintaining the conviction of appellants no. 2 to 4 under Sections

148, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323/149, 323, 452 & 440 of

IPC as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the

period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.

They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged

accordingly.

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

learned court below be sent back forthwith.

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 52/1993:-

In light of the above order passed by this Court in S.B.

Criminal Appeal No.324/1992, the present Criminal Appeal

No.52/1993 is dismissed.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

52-53-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)