Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishore Kumar And Ors vs State on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Judge)
(1 of 3) [CRLA-506/1997]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 506/1997
Kishore Kumar And Ors
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. CS Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
26/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed, impugned judgment dated 20.09.97 passed
by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside
and the appellants may be acquitted in this case."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1997.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
20.09.1997, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case
No.59/96 (34/94 old) whereby the appellants were convicted for
the offences under Sections 393 IPC, Section 3/25 Arms Act and
Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced as under:- (Sentences will run
concurrently).
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:49:58 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-506/1997]
Section 393 IPC:- Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
one months' S.I. (each).
Section 3/25 Arms Act:- One years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
fifteen days' S.I. (each).
Section 27 Arms Act:- Three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
fifteen days' S.I. (each).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited prayer
that the appellants were commonly arrested on 02.3.1994 and
their sentences were suspended 05.1.1998 and the appellants
have already undergone three years & ten months of sentence out
of five years awarded to them.
5. 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 05.01.1998 passed in S.B.
Criminal Bail Application No.406/1997.
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:-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:49:58 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-506/1997]
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..."
9. 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 393 IPC,
Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 27 Arms Act , as above, the
sentence 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.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
66-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
