Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh And Ors vs State on 19 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-502/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 502/1994
Bhanwar Singh And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
19/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Appeal may
kindly be allowed and the accused appellants may be
acquitted of all the charges leveled against them."
2. Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae
to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-petitioners under the
free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. Her remuneration shall be paid by
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1991 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
21.09.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali
in Sessions Case No.31/92 whereby the appellants Bhanwar
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:16:42 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-502/1994]
Singh, Amar Singh and Madho Singh were acquitted from the
offences under Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC; Sections 307,
326/34 and 323 IPC and Sections 307, 324, 326/34 IPC
respectively and appellant Bhanwar Singh was convicted for the
offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo three
years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which
he was ordered to further undergo six months' S.I. ; Amar Singh
was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo
three months' S.I. and Madho Singh was convicted for the offence
under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in
default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo
three months' S.I.
5. Vide order dated 05.08.2021, it is noted by this Court that
the appellant no.3 has expired on 27.11.2008. Thus, the present
appeal qua deceased-appellant No.3- Vijay Singh already stood
abated.
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 17.10.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) No.469/1994.
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 appellants
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by them.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:16:42 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-502/1994]
9. On perusal of record, this Court finds that there was no
intention to cause death, the only intention was to inflict injuries
upon the complainant. All the three accused were responsible for
one injury each and all the injuries are simple in nature and there
was only one injury that was grievous in nature.
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:-
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
appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the appellants' conviction under Sections 326, 324 &
323 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to
the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:16:42 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-502/1994]
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.
39-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
