Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Chand vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:26394)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6099 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26394] (1 of 5) [CRLA-280/2012]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 280/2012

Uttam Kumar @ Uttamchand S/o Shri Deva Ram, by caste Rawal, aged adult, R/o Manora, P.S. Barlut, District Sirohi

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

19/08/2023

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section

374 (2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated

16.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in

Special Sessions Case No.15/2011, whereby he has been

convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence convicted Section 323 of the IPC 3 months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo, simple imprisonment of 15 days Section 3(1)(x) of the 6 months' simple imprisonment alongwith SC/ST Act a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo, simple imprisonment of 15 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[2023:RJ-JD:26394] (2 of 5) [CRLA-280/2012]

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

case are that on 11.05.2011, complainant Hakmaram S/o Punma

Ji Meghwal, resident of Manora, submitted a written report at the

Police Station Barlut to the effect that on that day at 10.30 p.m. a

function was going on at his sister's house. At that time, Uttam

Kumar Rawal came there and started abusing and hurling caste

related abuses towards his son Praveen Kumar and also slapped

him 2-3 times. The persons standing there intervened, upon

which, the accused went away giving a life threat.

3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.54/2011 for the

offences under Sections 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the

SC/ST Act was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed against the present appellant.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant

for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10

witnesses were examined and 7 documents were exhibited.

Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution

allegations and claimed the son of the complainant owed him

money and a mobile phone and upon asking for the same, the

complainant party got infuriated and lodged a false case against

him. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the

learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the

[2023:RJ-JD:26394] (3 of 5) [CRLA-280/2012]

appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

16.03.2012, which is under assail before this court in the instant

appeal.

5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for

the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect

of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and

preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He

submits that the incident pertains to the year 2011, in which, the

appellant, who was then a young man, asked for the money and

mobile he owed and in the heat of moment, he hurled some

abuses towards the son of the complainant. It was the first

criminal case registered against him. He had no criminal

antecedents. No adverse remark has been passed over his

conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the rigor of

criminal case for good 12 years, therefore, taking a lenient view

the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period

already undergone.

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

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

the first criminal case registered against the appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public prosecutor and perused the material available on the

record.

[2023:RJ-JD:26394] (4 of 5) [CRLA-280/2012]

8. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after

perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference

in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court

does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 2011. At

that time, the accused appellant was young man. The right to

speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and

cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant

has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a

period of more than 12 years and has been in the corridors of the

court for this prolonged period. The reformative theory of

punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellant is

living peacefully since last 12 years as no report contrary to that

has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he

has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by

sending him to jail at this stage as much misery has already been

inflicted upon him.

10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the

appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellant also

deserves 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 Haripada Das Vs.

State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and

[2023:RJ-JD:26394] (5 of 5) [CRLA-280/2012]

Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in

the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had

to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of

justice would be met, if sentences imposed upon him for each

count is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012

passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in Special

Sessions Case No.15/2011 is affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under

Section 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is

modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail

bonds are discharged.

12. The appeal is allowed in part.

13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

14. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 90-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)