Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaggu And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 189/1994
Jaggu And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
12/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1990 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 1994.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
31.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhilwara in Sessions Case 105/90 whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences under Sections 307/149, 148, 323/149
of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the
incident happened on 27.09.1990 between 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM
at village Bherukhera when the accused started beating the
complainant with lathis and axe. Basically the injuries were
suffered by Meva Ram only.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hema has
already expired, who was sentenced for three years, apart from
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:23:12 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-189/1994]
him, Jaggu has been sentenced for three years whereas Harish,
Godu, Sriram and Tulcha have been sentenced for one year each.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court towards the statement of PW-3 & PW-6, who being the
witnesses, have turned hostile. Learned counsel has further drawn
attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-2, and has
pointed out that the allegations were omnibus and no specific role
has been assigned by him to anyone except Jaggu. Learned
counsel also points out that the prosecution witness no.10 has
also turned hostile.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though one
of the injuries is of very serious in nature, but the author of the
injury is doubtful because the axe itself would have caused an
incised wound whereas the injury in question is a blunt injury.
7. 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 18.04.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.199/1994.
8. 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.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. 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:-
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:23:12 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-189/1994]
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..."
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 Sections 307/149, 148, 323/149
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.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
49-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
