Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Lal vs State on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-429/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 429/1994
Shyam Lal
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
17/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed and the appellant may kindly be acquitted
for the aforesaid charges."
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
27.07.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.92/92, whereby the
appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and
394 IPC and he was sentenced as under:-
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:16:05 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-429/1994]
307 IPC : Seven Years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in
default of payment of which, he was ordered
to further undergo three months' R.I.
394 IPC : Three Years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in
default of payment of which, he was ordered
to further undergo three months' R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lady in
Kondabai came from Solapur (Maharashtra) to live with the
present accused-appellant as his wife as she had developed
relationship with him and the allegation is that she was put in the
well, while she incurred two grievous injuries and seven simple
injuries. Learned counsel further submits that there is a
consistency in the statement rendered by Kondabai and also PW-5
Lehru, PW-6 Kalu, PW-7 Shankar Lal, PW-8 Chhoga and PW-9
Chhoga Bheel, who turned hostile. Learned counsel also submits
that none of the injuries are dangerous to life.
5. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
makes a limited prayer that the appellant was initially put in
custody on 11.05.1992 then released on 01.02.1994, and
thereafter, was behind the bars from 27.07.1994 to 06.01.1995,
and thus, has completed custody of around one year.
6. 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 06.01.1995 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) No.11/1995.
7. 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
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:16:05 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-429/1994]
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
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 appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
the appellant's conviction under Sections Sections 307 and 394 of
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.
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:16:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-429/1994]
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
29-Zeeshan/Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
