Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rangala And Ors vs State on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-152/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 152/1994
Rangala And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
09/05/2022
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 this appeal may very kindly be
allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.03.1994 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in
Sessions Case No.126 of 1992 may very kindly be set aside
and the convictions and sentences passed against the
appellants may very kindly be set aside and the accused-
appellants may very kindly be acquitted of the offence under
Section 147 and Section 302-II read with Section 149 IPC. In
the alternative, at the most the accused-appellants can be
held guilty only for the offence under Section 323 of PC only. "
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:35:47 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-152/1994]
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
05.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Banswara in Sessions Case 126/92 whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 304-II read
with Section 149 IPC, as under.
Section 147 IPC: 01 year' RI and a fine of Rs.100 /- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 01 month' RI.
Section 304-II R/W 149 IPC: 03 years' RI and a fine of
Rs.200 /- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02
Months' RI.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is
of 09.11.1988, which took place in a sudden manner, when the
parties entered into an altercation regarding the grazing of the
cattle.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there
was no weapon used to cause any injuries. Learned counsel also
submits that the cause of death was rupture of spleen even when
the injures caused were simple in nature.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this
Court towards the statement of PW-1 Dr. Indra Narayan Bhardwaj
who has deposed that the cause of death was the rupture of the
spleen.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that PW-1 Dr.
Indra Narayan Bhardwaj in his statement has deposed that all the
injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused on
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:35:47 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-152/1994]
being brushed with the ground. PW-1 has further deposed in his
cross-examination that since the spleen was enlarged, therefore,
even with a simple injury, it could rupture causing death.
9. 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 01.04.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.160/1994.
10. 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.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
12. 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
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:35:47 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-152/1994]
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..."
13. 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 appellants' conviction under Sections 147 and 304-II read with
Section 149 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.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
27-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
