Shiv Sagar vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 7252 Raj

                                         (1 of 3)                  [CRLA-115/1994]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 115/1994

Shiv Sagar
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. N.K. Rastogi.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP.



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                 Judgment

16/05/2022

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

preferred claiming the following reliefs:


     "It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed
     and the judgment and conviction passed by the court below
     dated 25.11.93 be set aside and the appellant be acquitted
     from all charges. In alternative it is also prayed that if any
     offence is proved under Sec. 325 I.P.C. the appellant may
     kindly be released on probation."


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

1992 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1994.

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal

Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

25.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Chittorgarh in Sessions Case 142/93 whereby the appellant was

convicted for the offences under Section 304 (II) IPC and


                     (Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:08:07 PM)
                                                (2 of 3)                    [CRLA-115/1994]


sentenced to undergo 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- default

of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo 6 months'

S.I.

4.     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 18.03.1994 passed in S.B.

Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.121/1994.

5.     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.

6.     Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

7.     On perusal of record, this Court finds that the injuries were

caused by blunt weapon and that, the incident occurred in a spur

of moment. It was a sudden act and that there was no intention to

cause death to deceased. There was only one injury on head

inflicted by a 'lathi'. There were no continuous beating and that

there was no blood on the 'lathi' that was recovered.

8.     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

                          (Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:08:07 PM)
                                                                                 (3 of 3)                  [CRLA-115/1994]

                                         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..."


                                   9.      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 304 (II) IPC, as above,

                                   the 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.


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

                                   learned court below be sent back forthwith.



                                                                     (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

39-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)