Rameshwar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5906 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25982]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1939/2022

1.       Rameshwar S/o Ramdev, Aged About 44 Years, Pavaliya
         P.s. Naraina, Dist. Jaipur.
2.       Jagmal S/o Nimbu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Vill. 5 L.l.
         Chak, P.s. Chunawadh Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                        Order

DATE OF ORDER                              :::                      16/08/2023
BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated

15.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.20/2012 whereby

the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-

 Name of Offence for Substantive Fine   and                                  default
 the     which       sentence    sentence
 accused convicted
 Rameshwar Section 5/8 of Two years' RI                  Fine of Rs.2,000/- each and
 Jagmal    the Rajasthan                                 in default of payment of fine,
               Bovine Animal                             additional             simple
               Act, 1955                                 imprisonment      of      two
                                                         months.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the SHO,

Police Station, Parbatsar District Nagaur and lodged an FIR

[2023:RJ-JD:25982] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1939/2022]

No.83/2012 at the Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the

offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the Rajasthan Bovine

Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary

Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act

of 1995') alleging inter alia that upon information of illegal

transport of bovines, a team was constituted and upon search of a

truck, appellants were found along with 10 oxes, out of which one

had died. After investigation, the appellants and one Bhagwana

Ram were charge-sheeted. It is revealing that during trial, the

said Bhagwana Ram had passed away. After taking cognizance and

framing of charges, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and

16 documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the

prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed innocence and after

affording opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, the

learned trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the

offences under Section 5/8 of the Act of 1995 and sentenced them

to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of

Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo 2

months simple imprisonment.

3. At the outset the learned counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria,

representing the appellants submitted that he does not wish to

press the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but seeks

benevolence on the point of sentence. He further states that in

Para No.26 of the judgment impugned it has been mentioned

that it was the first offence of the appellants and they have no

[2023:RJ-JD:25982] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1939/2022]

other criminal incident antecedent; the appellants are poor

villagers neither they were owner of the vehicle nor of the

cattles; they were the employees and not the owner of the truck

used for the commission of offence, reformative approach should

be adopted to reform or rehabilitate them by reducing their

sentence to period they have undergone.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment impugned.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case minutely and

convinced that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned

trial Judge is up to mark and no error has been committed in

passing the same, therefore, the judgment of conviction is

affirmed and appeal to this extent is dismissed.

6. So far is the question of sentence part is concerned, it is

stated that the accused-appellants were youth at the time of

incident; they were aged between 30 to 35 years; they have no

criminal antecedent, this fact has also been observed by the

learned trial Judge; they had remained in jail for some time;

during investigation and trial and where after around 15 days

post conviction. The incident took place in the year 2012 and

since then, they are continuously attending the court

proceedings for last 11 years. Therefore, considering the nature

and gravity of the offence; the circumstances of case as well as

looking to the social and economical background of the accused

and their family details; the persons dependent upon them;

mainly looking to the fact that they belonged to a remote village

[2023:RJ-JD:25982] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1939/2022]

and are indigent persons, I deem it appropriate to reduce the

sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the period under

gone by them.

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 under Section 5/8 of the

Act of 1995, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the

period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.

[2023:RJ-JD:25982] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1939/2022]

They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged

accordingly.

9. Application for Suspension of Sentence and all pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Record of the

learned Court below be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 129-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)