Pratap Singh And Anr vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 6230 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 651/2003

1. Pratap Singh S/o Buta Singh, by caste Baori

2. Smt. Sarjeet Kaur @ Jitto W/o Pratpa Singh, by caste Baori, both residents of 19 FF Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Aditya Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the

following manner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sri Karanpur vide judgment dated 03.04.2000 passed

in the Criminal Original Case No.496/1992 :-

Offence        for        which Sentence,                fine       and      default
convicted                       sentence
Section 326 or            Section 4 years' RI and a fine of Rs.100/-
326/34 of the IPC                 with default sentence of 2 months
Section 324 of the IPC                1 year's SI
Section 323 of the IPC                1 year's SI
Section 447 of the IPC                3 months' SI

A compensation of Rs.12,000/- in total and a prosecution expenses of Rs.800/- were also ordered to be deposited.

The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment was partly

allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur

(2 of 6) [CRLR-651/2003]

vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.19/2003, whereby the petitioners were acquitted from the

offence under Section 326 of the IPC and the order regarding

compensation and prosecution expenses was set aside. The

conviction and sentences for the rest of the offences were

affirmed. Hence, this revision petition under Section 397/401 of

the CrPC has been preferred.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 30.07.1992,

the complainant Chanan Singh (P.W.3) submitted an oral report at

the Police Station Gajsinghpur to the effect that on 28.07.1992 his

brother-in-law's daughter Amar Kaur and her husband Gurdayal

Singh had come to his house. On 30.07.1992, the complainant,

his wife, Amar Kuar, Hanuman and Roshan were sitting and

talking. At that time Pratap Singh and his wife Jeeto, who were

armed with Kripan and Daati, came there and alleged that the

Gurdayal Singh had teased his wife. Gurdayal Singh tried to run

away, but Pratap Singh gave him Kripan blow on face while Jeeto

gave him blow from Daati. Amar Kaur tried to rescue her

husband, upon which, the accused gave blow with the Kripan and

Daati to her too. Gurdayal Singh fell on the ground and

considering him dead, the accused went away from the scene.

Gurdayal Singh later on told that he had made some prank with

the wife of Pratap Singh and being offended by it, the accused

tried to kill him. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.82/1992 was

registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

(3 of 6) [CRLR-651/2003]

against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections

307, 326, 324, 323 and 447 of the IPC.

3. The Learned trial court framed charges against the

petitioners for the offences under Section 307, 326, 324, 323 and

447 of the IPC. However, later on they were discharged from the

offence under Section 307 of the IPC. A full-fledged trial was

conducted and upon culmination of the same, the petitioners were

convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above vide

judgment dated 03.04.2000. The appeal preferred against the

said judgment was partly allowed in the manner stated above vide

judgment dated 24.07.2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed

before this court.

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 confines his arguments to

the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentences awarded by

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

pertains to the year 1992. The petitioners have already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 31 years. The petitioners were 30

years and 26 years of age at the time of the incident. They have

remained in custody for some time during trial and after passing

the judgment in appeal. It was the first criminal case registered

against them and they had no criminal antecedents. With these

submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,

(4 of 6) [CRLR-651/2003]

the sentences awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the

period already undergone.

5. 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 petitioners and that

they have remained behind the bars for some time.

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 1992. The trial took 8 years to culminate and the appeal

took further 3 years in decision. Thereafter, this revision petition

is pending before this court for last 20 years. 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 31 years and have been in the corridors of

the court for this prolonged period. They have remained in

custody for some time during trial and after passing of the

judgment in appeal. It was the first criminal case registered

against them. They are living peacefully for a long period as not

(5 of 6) [CRLR-651/2003]

report contrary to that has been received by this court. The

petitioners were 30 and 26 years of age at the time of the incident

and now they have turned 61 and 57 years respectively. 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 Haripada Das Vs. State of West

Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony

Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648

and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of

petitioners, their criminal antecedents, 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 sentences imposed upon the petitioners for each

count are reduced to the one already undergone by them.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2000

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri

Karanpur in the Criminal Original Case No.496/1992 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 24.07.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Appeal

No.19/2003 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by

the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 323, 324 and

447 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence the

petitioners have undergone till date would be sufficient and

(6 of 6) [CRLR-651/2003]

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioners are on

bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, are disposed of.

10. The record be returned to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 28-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)