Dhanna Ram And Ors vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 6092 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 975/2002

1. Dhanna Ram
2. Sua Ram
3. Javana Ram
All sons of Lachchhu Ji, all by caste Meghwal, all residents of
Kalagun, Police Station Deogarh, Dist. Rajsamand.
4. Jagdish Chandra S/O Dhanna Ram, by caste Meghwal,
resident of Kalagun, Police Station Deogarh, Dist. Rajsamand.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
The state of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
                               Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                Judgment

RESERVED ON                                :::                   16/08/2023


PRONOUNCED ON                        :::                        19/08/2023


BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing this Criminal Revision Petition challenge has

been made to the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in

Criminal appeal No.21/2002, whereby the learned appellate court

affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

31.05.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First class),

Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.308/1996; whereby the

petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:

                                     (2 of 5)                       [CRLR-975/2002]


Offence     for    which Sentence, fine and default sentence
convicted
Section 458 of the IPC         One year's simple imprisonment alongwith
                               a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment
                               of fine, further to undergo fifteen days'
                               simple imprisonment
Section 323 of the IPC         One month simple imprisonment
Section 504 of the IPC         One month simple imprisonment

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision petitions are that on

10.07.1996, complainant Mohan Balai submitted a report to the

SHO, Police Station Deogarh to the effect that at about 08:00

p.m., the complainant along with his wife and mother, was sitting

at their home when the petitioners came to their house carrying

sticks and axes with them, abused them verbally and started

beating them. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR

No.184/1996 was registered and after usual investigation, a

charge-sheet came to be filed against petitioners. After conducting

a full-fledged trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced

the petitioners in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

31.05.2000. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment

was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

29.10.2002 while affirming the conviction and maintaining the

sentence awarded to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition

is preferred by them.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not

assail conviction of the petitioners and confine his arguments to

the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

(3 of 5) [CRLR-975/2002]

trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case

pertains to the year 1996. The petitioners were 45, 30 and 35

years of age respectively at that time. Presently, they are aged

72, 57 and 62 years respectively. The petitioners have already

suffered agony of protracted trial for long 27 years. The

petitioners have remained in custody for more sometime after

passing of judgment of appeal. No fruitful purpose would be

served by sending the present petitioners to jail at this stage. With

these submissions, learned counsel pray that by taking a lenient

view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to

the period already undergone by them.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the

petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and the

case is pending since long.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 1996. The petitioners were 45, 30 and 35 years of age

(4 of 5) [CRLR-975/2002]

respectively at that time. Presently, they are aged 72, 57 and 62

years respectively. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one

of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the

Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of

protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 27 years and

have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioners

deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also deserve

the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this

regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Panchram vs The State

Of Chhattisgarh and Ors reported in AIR 2023 SC 1801 and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of

petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that they faced

financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court

is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence

imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by

them.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2000

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First class), Rajsamand

in Criminal Regular Case No.308/1996 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 29.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No.21/2002 are

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial

court to the petitioners for their respective offences is modified to

the extent that for each count, the sentence undergone by the

(5 of 5) [CRLR-975/2002]

petitioners till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the

interest of justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not

surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petitions are allowed in part. Pending

applications, if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 3-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)