Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Babli And Ors vs State on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLA-281/1995]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 281/1995
Smt. Babli And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhati
Mr. Jubin Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present appeal may kindly be
allowed and appellant Smt. Babli may be acquitted from the charges of
Section 326 IPC and the appellants Raku, Bhura, Kamji may also be
acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 326/34 IPC. The
impugned judgment dated 03.07.1995 may kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1995.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
03.07.1995 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge,
Banswara in Sessions Case No.125/1994 whereby the appellants
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:40 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-281/1995]
were convicted for offence under Sections 326 and 326/34 IPC
and were sentenced as under:-
Smt. Babli
326 IPC : 03 years' R.I and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 02 months S.I.
Raku, Bhura & Kamji
326/34 IPC : 03 years' R.I and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 02 months S.I.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is of
29.03.1994 at about 10.30 am when Kunja was attacked by the
present appellants. The injury caused by axe upon head of Punja
was attributed to Babli. Counsel for the appellants submits that
Shanker has been posed as eye-witness and he has narrated the
incident as if he was seeing it, whereas there is absolute
contradiction as the injured (PW-2) i.e. Punja clearly deposes that
he was alone at the site as his son was away, which was about
one mile. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this
Court to statement of PW-2 i.e. Punja, who is the victim/injured.
He stated that Babli had given an axe blow on his head whereas
Bhura, Raku & Kamji was holding him and they did not cause any
beating with him. PW-2 expressly says that there are no other
eye-witness as he was alone at the place.
Counsel for the appellant submits that manner in which
Shanker & Dhanna have deposed is nothing but development of
prosecution case during the course of trial without noticing that
there is absolute contradiction in statements of Punja on one side
and that of Shankar & Dhana on the other side.
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:40 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-281/1995]
Counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries were
grievous and lacerated in nature and axe, which has been stated
as the weapon of offence, could not have cause the same. Counsel
for the appellants submits that there is no incised wound at all but
there is consistency their statements of giving axe blow.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.07.1995 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.300/1995.
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 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."
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:40 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-281/1995]
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. This Court after hearing submissions as well as carefully
perusing the record finds that there is contradiction between
statement of PW-2-Punja(injured) and his son PW-1 Shankar and
PW-3 Dhanna. Dhanna and Shanker deposed as if they were eye-
witnesses, whereas victim/injured Punja submits that he was
alone at the site and no one was around him and Bhura, Raku &
Kamji were holding him but did not participate in giving any
beating.
This Court finds that PW-4 i.e. Dr. Yudhistir Trivedi has
clearly deposed that injuries were lacerated and grievous in
nature.
This Court finds consistency in statements of witnesses
including injured because the blow was given by Babli, whereas no
axe injury is there on the person of injured. None of the witnesses
pointed out that the axe was used from its reversed side. Thus,
this Court finds that there is a strong suspicion in prosecution
story. Even statements of PW-1 & PW-3 do not co-relate with that
of PW-2. The doctor's evidence does not support prosecution case
of incident having been caused by axe nor does it reflect any
incised wound.
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:40 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-281/1995]
10. In light of aforesaid observations, the present appeal is
partly allowed. The sentence in-question is converted into
sentenced already undergone. Accordingly, while maintaining the
appellants' conviction under Sections 326 and 326/34 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 to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
29-Nirmala/Sanjay
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
