Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bahadur Singh And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 236/1992
Bahadur Singh And Anr.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanka Borana (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
18/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that your lordship will be pleased to
accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence
awarded against appellants and appellants be acquitted for the
offences under Sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34 and 323/34
of IPC."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1992.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 30.06.1992, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.102/1990
whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:06:23 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-236/1992]
326/34 IPC: 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2000/- in default
of payment of which, they were ordered to
further undergo one year's R.I. (each)
325/34 IPC: 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1500/- in default
of payment of which, they were ordered to
further undergo one year's R.I. (each)
324/34 IPC: 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default
of payment of which, they were ordered to
further undergo six months' R.I. (each)
323/34 IPC: 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment of which, they were
ordered to further undergo fifteen days' R.I.
(each)
4. Vide order dated 20.09.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court,
the present appeal qua deceased-appellant No.1-Pratap Singh
already stood abated.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 01.09.1992 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No.299/1992.
6. 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.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. This Court finds that the PW-2 Heer Singh has turned hostile
and there are discrepancies in the statements and FIR.
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:-
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:06:23 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-236/1992]
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 qua appellant No.2-Bahadur Singh and
appellant No.3-Gajendra Singh is partly allowed. Accordingly,
while maintaining the appellants' conviction under Sections
326/34, 325/34, 324/34 & 323/34 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. However, this Court enhances the fine by an additional
Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the victim Ganpat Singh, and in case the
victim is deceased, the same shall be payable to his heirs, in
addition to that which has been already paid by the appellants. In
default the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:06:23 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-236/1992]
period of one year. The payment shall be made within three
months from today.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
18-Zeeshan/Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
