Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mulakh Raj And Ors vs State on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Judge)
(1 of 5) [CRLA-77/2014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 77/2014
Mulakh Raj And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 162/2014
Ramswaroop
----Appellant
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. RS Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. SK Verma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
26/05/2022
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 77/2014 :
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It, is therefore most humbly prayed that the Cr. Appeal of the
appellants may kindly be allowed and appellants may kindly
be acquitted for the offence u/s 325/34, 341/34, 323/34 IPC
and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2014
passed by the learned trial court in Sessions case no-03/12
State v/s Krishan lal & others"
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:02 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-77/2014]
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
2012 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2014.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
23.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.13/2012,
whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under
Sections 325/34, 341/34, 323/34 IPC and were sentenced as
under:- (Sentences will run concurrently).
Section 325/34 IPC:- Four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
one months' S.I.
Section 341/34 IPC:- One months' S.I.
Section 323/34 IPC:- One years' R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are
sufficient contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and therefore, the learned trial court relying
upon them and arriving at a conviction order is not fair. Learned
counsel further submits that learned trial court convicted the
appellants on the basis of statement of PW-2 Gopisingh, as during
trial, one of the injured-Vinod Kumar had expired due to the
reasons other than in the trial and his statement could not be
recorded, but his parchabayan was read into, which was not in
accordance with law.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:02 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-77/2014]
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that
parchabayan has no legal sanctity to be read into by the learned
trial court to arrive at a conviction, particularly when it is neither
corroborated nor supported by any other evidence. The crucial
witness PW-2 has already declared hostile and thus, the
prosecution case has been completely collapsed. Learned counsel
further submits that independent witness and recovery witness
have not supported the prosecution story.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants at the end prays that
substantial part of the sentence has been undergone by the main
accused Mulakh Raj whereas the total sentence itself is of four
years and the other two accused has also suffered the some
punishment, therefore, the sentence awarded to the present
appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already
undergone by them.
7. 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 12.02.2014 passed in S.B.
Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.104/2014.
8. 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.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:02 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-77/2014]
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 325/34,
341/34, 323/34 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is
reduced to the period already undergone by them, with the
stipulation that they shall deposit the fine amount to the tune of
Rs.10,000/- each. The appellants are on bail. They need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:02 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-77/2014]
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 162/2014 :
In light of the above order passed by this Court in S.B.
Criminal appeal No.77/2014, the present Criminal Appeal
No.162/2014 is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
215-216-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
