Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Lal vs State on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-224/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 224/1994
Prabhu Lal
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Trivedi (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
20/05/2022
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 appellant may be acquitted
of all the charges leveled against him."
2. Mr. Himanshu Trivedi, Advocate is appointed as Amicus
Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-petitioners
under the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His 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
1988 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
22.04.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:39 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-224/1994]
Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.46/88, whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences under Sections 325, 452, 147, 352 IPC
and sentenced as under:- (Sentences will run concurrently).
Section 325 IPC:- Four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further
two months' R.I.
Section 452 IPC:- Two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default
of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further one
months' R.I.
Section 147 IPC:- Two months' R.I.
Section 352 IPC:- One months' R.I.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident in
question happened on 17.06.1988 and 34 years have elapsed
since then. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution
case was wavering from the beginning as the critical and crucial
evidence of doctor was not led by the prosecution and thus,
neither the postmortem report and nor the injury report could be
examined / cross-examination before the learned trail court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
essential lacunae of the Investigating Officer not having been
examined is also on record. Learned counsel further submits that
the appellant has undergone six months of custody during trial.
Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has
arrived at a conclusion that out of twelve persons only three were
responsible and that too Madan and Jay have been given the
benefit of probation of offenders act and even Madan was facing
the similar allegations as that of the present appellant. Learned
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:39 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-224/1994]
counsel for the appellant further submits that PW-3 Gyanchand
and PW-4, who were crucial witnesses, turned hostile.
7. 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 06.05.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension) of Sentence No.240/1994.
8. 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.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. This Court, after taking into consideration the facts
submitted by learned counsel for the parties, finds that there are
serious lacunae in the prosecution case and particularly with
aspect to non-examination of the doctor regarding the
postmortem report and the injury report. The Investigating Officer
himself has not been examined and crucial witnesses PW-3
Gyanchand and PW-4 Nanda have turned hostile. Keeping into
consideration the aforesaid submissions, the sentence awarded to
the present appellant is substituted with the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
11. 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)
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:23:39 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-224/1994]
"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..."
12. 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 325, 452, 147, 352 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.
13. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
28-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
