Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Kishan vs State on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 119/1995
Chhotu Das
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 108/1995
Jai Kishan
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohanani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
Ms. Anjali Kaushik
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/05/2022
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(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased
to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and
after perusal, quash the conviction and sentences passed
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:25:28 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-119/1995]
against the appellant, acquit him, or pass any other orders
that his Hon'ble court deems fit and proper."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1993 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1995.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
23.03.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential
Commodities Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 13/95 whereby
the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 326
& 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years' R.I. and a fine
of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which they were further
ordered to undergo three months R.I. to each.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of
this Court to the statement of Dr. Kothari alongwith exhibit P/25,
which is operation note as per which, doctor in his examination
stated that injuries were not dangerous to life, particularly, rib
fracture.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant Chhotu Das was however
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 03.04.1995
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Bail)
Petition No.125/95 and sentence awarded to appellant- Jai Kishan
was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 30.03.1995
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Bail) Petition
No.120/95.
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:25:28 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-119/1995]
7. 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.
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
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. 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 appellants' conviction under Sections 326 &
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:25:28 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-119/1995]
326/34 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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
29-30-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
