Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heera Lal And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:26064) on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:26064]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 576/1998
1. Heera Lal S/o Hasta Ram:
2. Smt. Pushpa W/o Heera Lal Both B/c Naik, R/o Outside
Mohalla, Goga Gate, Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta
Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA-cum-PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT :::: 17/08/2023
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
15.09.1998 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.27/1998 whereby the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
Heera Lal Section451 IPC Six months' RI Fine of Rs.100/- and in
default of payment of
fine, to further
undergo 15 days RI
Section 323 Three months' Fine of Rs.50/- and in
IPC RI default of payment of
fine, to further
undergo 7 days RI
[2023:RJ-JD:26064] (2 of 6) [CRLA-576/1998]
Smt. Pushpa Section 326 Seven years' Fine of Rs.100/- and in
IPC RI default of payment of
fine, to further
undergo 15 days RI
Section 451 Six months' RI Fine of Rs.100/- and in
IPC default of payment of
fine, to further
undergo 15 days RI
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 a report
(Ex.P/9) came to be lodged on 15.10.1997, which was based on
the statement of one Lala Ram recorded by the ASI of Police
Station Coatgate, Bikaner. It was alleged that the deceased Lala
Ram and the appellants' family are close relatives and there was a
discord between them; on the day of incident suddenly appellants
pelted stones in the house of Lalaram upon which, he came out of
the room and received injuries. On raising protest, the appellant
Pushpa and all other accused persons namely Heeralal and Rupa
Devi gave beating to him by fists and kicks; the appellant Pushpa
poured hot water on his waist as a consequence of which, his
lumber suffered with blisters. After chalking out the FIR (Ex.P/9)
the investigation was commenced and during the course of
treatment, on 17.10.1997, victim Lalaram died thus, offence
under Section 302 IPC was added and after thorough
investigation, appellant Pushpa was chargesheeted for the offence
under Sections 302, 451 and 336 of the IPC and rest of the
accused Heeralal and Rupa Devi were charge sheeted for the
[2023:RJ-JD:26064] (3 of 6) [CRLA-576/1998]
offence under Sections 302/34, 451 and 336 of the IPC and the
trial commenced.
3. After taking cognizance and framing of charges, as many as
10 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they abjured the
allegations and adduced two witnesses in defence. After affording
opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, the learned
trial Court acquitted the accused Roopa Devi whereas, accused
Heerlal and Pushpa Devi were acquitted for offence under
Sections 302/34 and 336 of the IPC however, convicted the
accused Heera Lal for the offence under Sections 451 and 323 of
the IPC and Smt. Pushpa for offence under Sections 326 and 451
of the IPC and both were sentenced as mentioned in para No.1 of
the judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants after arguing the matter
to some extent does not press the judgment of conviction and
seeks benevolence on the point of sentence only.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions
advanced by the appellants' counsel and submits that the learned
trial Court has passed a well reasoned therefore, no interference is
called for by this Court.
[2023:RJ-JD:26064] (4 of 6) [CRLA-576/1998]
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and scrutinized the record of the
case.
7. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have minutely gone through
the evidence brought on record and find no illegality or
misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court, the same does not require interference of
this Court. Thus, the appeal is dismissed to the extent of finding of
guilt and judgment of conviction is maintained.
9. So far as the question of order of sentence is concerned, the
parties are closed relatives and were living in a close area; neither
there was any intend to inflict serious injuries nor the animosity
was of so serious degree, so as to instigate them to commit an
offence under Section 326 of the IPC; no weapon was used by the
by the appellants in commission of offence; they have not any
previous criminal antecedents; as per the memos issued during
investigation, in the year 1997, appellants Heeralal and Smt.
Pushpa were aged about 30 years and 26 years. Now, after 26
years have lapsed and she has become more older; they remained
in jail for few days during investigation and trial and whereafter
about two months post conviction, therefore, after lapse of 26
years I do not find it justifiable to send them back to the jail.
Thus, in my humble view, the sentence suffered by them till date
[2023:RJ-JD:26064] (5 of 6) [CRLA-576/1998]
and rigor of trial which they faced, would be sufficient enough to
meet the ends of justice; they have good case for reduction of
sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to
the period already undergone.
10. 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..."
11. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
[2023:RJ-JD:26064] (6 of 6) [CRLA-576/1998]
laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of appellant Heera Lal under Sections
451 & 323 of the IPC and appellant Pushpa under Sections 326 &
451 IPC, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
12. 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.
69/ Mamta
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
