Rudi Devi And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27777)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6238 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27777]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 105/2003

1. Rudi Devi W/o Bhagwan Das

2. Bhagwan Das S/o Nandu Ram

3. Jeet S/o Bhagwan Das

4. Kishan Devi W/o Charan Das

5. Kali Devi W/o Ved Prakash All by caste Bavri, resident of Sadhuwali, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia Ms. Kinjal Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 21.01.2003

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

Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.57/2002, whereby the learned

appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 15.06.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case

No.512/1999; whereby the petitioners have been convicted and

sentenced as under :-

[2023:RJ-JD:27777] (2 of 6) [CRLR-105/2003]

Name of the Offence for Sentence, fine and petitioner which convicted default sentence Rudi Devi, Bhagwan Section 147 IPC Fine of Rs.500/- and in Das, Jeet, Kishan Devi default of payment of fine, and Kali Devi simple imprisonment of 15 days Section 341 IPC Fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 7 days Section 323 IPC Fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 10 days Bhagwan Das, Jeet, Section 326 read Simple imprisonment of 3 Kishan Devi and Kali with Section 149 years alongwith a fine of Devi IPC Rs.2000/- and in default of Rudi Devi Section 326 IPC payment fine, simple imprisonment of 1 month

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 28.07.1999 at

12.50 p.m., Mrs. Dropadi, who was admitted at Government

Hospital, Women Surgical Ward, gave a Parcha Bayan to Mr.

Bhanwar Lal, Sub Inspector to the effect that her husband had

expired 3 years ago. She and her children used to live at

Sadhuwali. Her neighbour Charandas's sister Nirmala was going

to her matrimonial home. The complainant and Charandas also

went to see her off at the bus stand Sadhuwali. At about 11

o'clcok, she, Nirmala, Charandas and Nirmala's son were waiting

for the bus. At that time, Charandas's matrimonial relatives,

namely, Rudi Devi, Bhagwandas, Jeet, Amar, Kishni Devi and Kali,

who were sitting at the nearby tea-stall, saw the complainant and

started abusing and assaulted over her. Nirmala and Charandas

tried to rescue her, but they were pushed down. Kali, Kishan

Devi, Jeet and Amar caught her hands and legs and Rudi Devi sit

[2023:RJ-JD:27777] (3 of 6) [CRLR-105/2003]

on her and bit and tore off her nose. She was taken to the

hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR

No.319/1999 was registered at the Police Station Jawahar Nagar

for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 341, 147 and 149 of the

IPC and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against

the petitioners.

3. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 147 and 326

or 326/149 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by them,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in

order to prove the offences, examined as many as 6 witnesses

and exhibited 10 documents. The accused, upon being confronted

with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section

313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No

evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned

Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon

meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court

convicted and sentenced the petitioners vide judgment dated

15.06.2002. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, they

preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate

court vide judgment dated 21.01.2003 affirming the judgment

passed by the trial court. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27777] (4 of 6) [CRLR-105/2003]

the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

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

pertains to the year 1999. The petitioners have already suffered

agony of protracted trial for 24 years. The petitioners, other than

Rudi Devi, remained in custody for 9 days during trial and Rudi

Devi remained in custody for 34 days. Further they remained

incarcerated for 15 days after decision of appeal. They were not

having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case

registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over

their conduct except the impugned judgment. With these

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

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 they

had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that they have

remained incarcerated for some time during trial and after passing

of the judgment in appeal.

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:27777] (5 of 6) [CRLR-105/2003]

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 1999. The trial took 3 years in culmination and the

appeal further took 1 year in disposal. Thereafter this revision

petition is pending before this court since the year 2003. 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 24 years and have been in

the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. Three of the

petitioners are women. It was the first criminal case registered

against them. They have not been shown to be indulged in any

other criminal case except this one. They were on bail during

most of the period of trial and during appeal and no report

regarding any misuse of liberty has been reported. They remained

incarcerated for some time during trial and after passing of the

judgment in appeal. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27777] (6 of 6) [CRLR-105/2003]

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 15.06.2002

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar

in Criminal Regular Case No.512/1999 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 21.01.2003 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal

No.57/2002 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by

the learned trial court for the offence under Section 326 or

326/149 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence

the petitioners have undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. However, they shall

have to deposit the fine amount with the trial court, if not already

deposited, within a period of 90 days from today. The petitioners

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

discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. All pending

applications are also disposed of.

10. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 10-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)