Karan Singh And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:26788)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6243 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26788]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 336/2002

1. Karan Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh

2. Avon Singh S/o Bheru Singh

3. Parbat Singh S/o Bheru Singh

4. Inder Singh S/o Bheru Singh

5. Mahipal Singh S/o Jai Singh All by caste Rajput, residents of Sanderao, Distt. Pali.

(at present lodged at Sub Jail Bali)

----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajeev Vishnoi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)           :    Mr.Vikram Sharma, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

23/08/2023

The criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated

10.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali

in Criminal Appeal No.8/1998, vide which, the learned appellate

court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as

recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur in

Criminal Case No.335/1992. The trial court convicted the

petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 447 IPC and sentenced

them to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under

Section 147 IPC and 3 months simple imprisonment for offence

[2023:RJ-JD:26788] (2 of 4) [CRLR-336/2002]

under Section 447 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- each; in default

to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment on both counts.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that one Smt. Jarha

Kanwar submitted a report at Police Station Sanderao on

28.05.1992 alleging inter alia therein that on 27.05.1992 at 7

p.m, accused-petitioners along with Hempal Singh, Mukand Singh

and two other persons came to her leased and occupied plot with

Koont and Bevel (a kind of native tools) and started cutting the

babool trees. The complainant and her daughter Naresh Kanwar

requested the accused persons not to do so, but they did not pay

heed to their request and started abusing and beating them. She

and her daughter went inside the house out of fear. The

complainant's two sons were doing job outside and they were

alone at home. The complainant also stated that in the night, the

complainant and her daughter informed the police about the

incident, on which, the SHO came on the spot and assured that

action will be taken after receiving a report in the morning. After

the police left, the accused came and started cutting the babool

trees and made a new fencing by taking a large portion of her land

in their share. On this report, the police registered a case for

offence under Section 147, 447 & 427/149 IPC and started

investigation. After investigation, chargesheet was presented in

the court. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the

accused-petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as 6 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of

accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was

examined on the defence side.

[2023:RJ-JD:26788] (3 of 4) [CRLR-336/2002]

After considering the material available on record, the

learned trial court while acquitting the accused-petitioners for

offence under Section 427 IPC, convicted them for offence under

Sections 147, 447 IPC vide order dated 15.07.1998 and sentenced

them, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the

accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, which was dismissed vide

judgment dt. 10.05.2002 while upholding the conviction and

sentence of the petitioners. Hence, this criminal revision petition.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners does not

want to challenge the finding of conviction but submits that the

incident pertains to year 1992. The accused-petitioners have

already undergone more than 10 days imprisonment out of total

imprisonment and also suffered mental agony and trauma since

1992, therefore, a lenient view may be taken and the sentence

awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be

reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the

judgment and order passed by the courts below and submitted

there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence

awarded to the accused-petitioners nor any compassion or

sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

gone through the judgments passed by both the courts below as

well as record of the case. The incident relates back to the year

1992 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of more

10 days imprisonment out of total imprisonment, so also suffered

the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking at the

[2023:RJ-JD:26788] (4 of 4) [CRLR-336/2002]

over-all circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of

justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment

awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court for

offence under Sections 147 & 447 IPC is reduced to the period of

imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.

While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under

Sections 147 & 447 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is hereby

reduced to the period already undergone by them. In the interest

of justice, the fine amount so imposed and affirmed by the

appellate court is hereby waived. The petitioners are on bail. Their

bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of trial court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 4-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)