Daularam And Anr vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 13376 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 491/2018

1. Daularam S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Dhankoli, Police Station Moulasar, District Nagaur Raj..

2. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Likhmaram, B/c Jat, R/o Moulasar, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur Raj.. Both Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Didwana, Nagaur

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/11/2022

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 and the impugned judgment dated 16.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Session Case No. 02/2011 (38/2014) (State Vs. Daularam & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted in this case.

Any other order favourable to the appellants may also be passed."

(2 of 5) [CRLAS-491/2018]

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

2010 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal

Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

16.3.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Didwana,

District Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 02/2011 (38/2014) whereby

the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections

363, 366 A and 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten

years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in

default of payment of fine to further undergo five months

additional imprisonment (for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g)

of IPC), six years RI and a fine of Rs. 6000/- and in default of

payment of fine to further undergo three months additional

imprisonment (under Section 366A of IPC), and three years RI

and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to

further undergo 1½ months additional imprisonment (for the

offence under Section 363 IPC).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

sentence so awarded to the appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar was

however suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court,

vide order dated 14.9.2018 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.

suspension of Sentence Application No. 535/2018.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited

submission that without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant No.2-

Manoj Kumar may be substituted with the period of sentence

already undergone by him.

(3 of 5) [CRLAS-491/2018]

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially the

allegations were levelled against five persons, out of which the

learned Trial Court has acquitted three persons thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of

this Court towards Paragraph 55 of the impugned order which

reads as follows:-

"55- vr% mijksDr leLr foospukuqlkj vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k nkSykjke o eukst ds }kjk fnukad 08-11-2010 dks nksigj ds i'pkr /ku dksyh xkao esa ls txnh'k dh nqdku ds ikl ls vfHk;ksD+h dks mlds fof/k iw.kZ laj{d dh lgefr ds fcuk fof/kiw.kZ laj{kd dh lja{kdrk esa ls ys tkdj O;igj.k fd;k rFkk ihfM+rk dk O;igj.k mldks vU; O;fDr ls v;qDr laHkksx djus ds fy;s foo'k djus ds vk'k; ls ys tkdj fd;k ,oa ihfM+rk dks nkSykjke ds [ksr esa ys tkdj vfHk;qDr nkSykjke ds }kjk vU; vfHk;qdr eukst ds lg;ksx ls ihfM+rk ds lkFk tcjnLrh eSFkwu dj lkewfgd cykRlax fd;kA vr% vfHk;qDr nkSykjke o eukst ds fo:+) /kkjk 363] 366 d o 376 ¼2½ ¼N½ Hkk-na- la- ds vkjksfir vijk/k ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ik;s tkrs gSA vr% vfHk;qDr nkSykjke o eukst dks mDr vijk/kksa esa nks"kfl) fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA"

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that

appellant No.1-Daularam essayed a major role in the commission

of the actual offence, whereas the role of appellant No.2-Manoj

Kumar in the offence was to only to the extent of rendering

support to appellant No.1-Daula Ram.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants thereafter emphasizes

upon the point that appellant No.1-Daula Ram has already

served his sentence, and thus, does not require any

indulgence of this Court.

(4 of 5) [CRLAS-491/2018]

10. Furthermore, appellant No.2-Manoj who is actually alleged to

have committed a 'lesser' offence of supporting appellant No.1-

Daularam was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 14.9.2018,

whereas he had completed a custody of about seven years and

ten months.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes, but is unable to

refute the aforesaid factual submissions.

12. 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..."

13. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,

and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this

Court on conjoint submission of the facts, upon a perusal of the

(5 of 5) [CRLAS-491/2018]

findings recorded in the impugned judgment, as well as the fact

that the main accused has been granted bail and has completed

the sentence awarded to him as well as the fact that the role of

the appellant was limited to the extent of supporting appellant

No.1-Daularam, and the fact that the other co-accused has been

acquitted by the learned Trial Court, and lastly, the fact that

appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar has undergone custody of seven

years and ten months, the present appeal is disposed of qua

the appellant No.2 Manoj Kumar. However, the present

appeal qua appellant No.1-Daularam is dismissed, in light

of the aforesaid submission made by his learned counsel

that he has already served out the complete sentence

awarded to him.

13.1 Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant

No.2-Manoj Kumar for the offences under Sections 363, 366A and

376 (2) (g) 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.

14. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the

learned court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J ns. 1-1/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)