Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rameshwar Lal And Ors vs State on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-520/1998]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 520/1998
Rameshwar Lal And Ors
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot with
Mr. Bhawani Singh,
Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
25/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this
appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.98 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case
No.10/97, State of Rajasthan Vs. Rameshwarlal and others,
may be quashed and set aside and the appellant-convicts be
acquitted for the charges levelled against them."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1998.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
25.07.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:09:42 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-520/1998]
Ratangarh in Sessions Case No.10/97, whereby the appellants
were acquitted for the offences under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC,
but convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325,
323/149, 325/149. The appellant Rameshwar Lal was convicted
for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325 and 323/149 IPC
with sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/-, fine of
Rs.100/-, two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- and six months
R.I. and the fine of Rs.250/- respectively and in default of
payment of Rs.250 for one month, for Rs.100/- seven days, for
Rs.500/- three months and for Rs.250/- for one month's further to
under S.I. respectively. The appellants Balaram, Sohanlal and
Jesara were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447,
325/149 and 323/149 of IPC with a sentence of one year's R.I.
and a fine of Rs.250/- each, with a fine of Rs.100/- each, two
years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- each and six months R.I. and a
fine of Rs.250/- each respectively and in default of payment of
Rs.250/- one month's, for Rs.100/- seven days, for Rs.500/- three
months and for Rs.250/- one month's further to undergo S.I.
respectively. The appellant Jagdish Prasad was given the benefit
under Section 6 to maintain peace and good behaviour for two
years on a personal bond of Rs.3,000/- and a surety bond in the
like amount with aN undertaking of not repeating such offence
under Section 4 as well as compensation of Rs.1000/- to be
deposited under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
4. 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 26.08.1998 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.424/98.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:09:42 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-520/1998]
5. 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.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. 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..."
8. 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 as above, the sentence
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:09:42 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-520/1998]
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.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
39-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
