Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Jadli And Ors vs State on 28 August, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


        S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 456/2003

   1. Smt. Jadli w/o Sheraram, resident of Chak 15-A, Tehsil
      Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.
   2. Sheraram s/o Baksha Ram, resident of Chak 15-A, Tehsil
      Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.
   3. Dula Ram s/o Shera Ram, resident of Chak 3-K, P.S.
      Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.
   4. Rajednra s/o Shera Ram, resident of Chak 3-K, P.S.
      Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.
   5. Mithu Ram s/o Sheokaran, resident of Chak 17-A, P.S.
      Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.

                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Dr. RDSS Kharlia.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

28/08/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

1.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Anoopgargh, District Sriganganagar in Cr.Appeal No.60/2003

whereby the judgment dated 18.2.2003 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar in

Cr.Original Case No.103/2011 was upheld.

The petitioners were convicted and sentenced as below:

(2 of 5) [CRLR-456/2003]

Accused Appellant Conviction for Sentences offences under Sections:

Jadli, Shera Ram, 326/149 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a Dula Ram, Rajendra IPC fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Jadli, Shera Ram, 324/149 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a Dula Ram, Rajendra IPC fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Jadli, Shera Ram, 147 IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a Dula Ram, Rajendra fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Jadli, Shera Ram, 323 IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a Dula Ram, Rajendra fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Mithu Ram 326 IPC 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Mithu Ram 324 IPC 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Mithu Ram 148 IPC 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Mithu Ram 323/149 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a IPC fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders

passed by court below are illegal being perverse to the law.

Learned counsel submitted that trial court and appellate court

failed to appreciate the facts in its correct perspective. It was

further argued that going through the injury report of injured

Ramkrishan would show that he sustained five injuries, out of

which, only injury No.3 is grievous in nature whereas other

injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel submitted that the

revisionists have been convicted for the offences under Section

148 and 149 IPC whereas there was no evidence that the

(3 of 5) [CRLR-456/2003]

petitioners reached on the spot with the common intention to

inflict the injuries. Taking the Court through the statements of

various witnesses, learned counsel submitted that it has not been

established by prosecution that the petitioners were having any

knowledge regarding the passage of the complainant from the

place of occurrence. It was vehemently submitted that the

petitioners cannot be convicted under Sections 148 and 149 IPC,

when five persons have allegedly caused five injuries, out of which

three have been allegedly caused by petitioner Mithu Singh.

Learned counsel submitted that looking to the nature and number

of injuries, the courts below have committed an illegality in

passing sentence without examining individual role of the accused

persons in commission of crime. It was urged that though injuries

on the injured have been proved through examination of Dr. Om

Prakash (PW-1) who prepared the injury report but admittedly, he

was not Radiologist. Learned counsel thus implored the court that

the petitioners be acquitted of the charges.

In the alternative, it was prayed that the FIR against present

petitioners was lodged in the year 2000, the petitioners are facing

agony of long protracted trial. The petitioners have remained in

custody for quite some time prior to passing of the order dated

05.08.2003 whereby sentence awarded to the petitioners was

suspended by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It was thus

prayed that the sentences awarded to the petitioners by courts

below may be substituted to the period already undergone by

them.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal revision

petition and submitted that there was ample evidence which

(4 of 5) [CRLR-456/2003]

proved the offences punishable under Sections 326/149, 324/149,

147, 323 IPC (petitioners Jadli, Shera Ram, Dula Ram, Rajendra),

326, 324, 148 and 323/149 IPC (petitioner Mithu Ram) for which

the petitioners were rightly sentenced by the learned trial court.

This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced on the behalf of the petitioners and State

and perused the material available on record.

After careful scanning of the material, this Court does not

find evidence to establish that the petitioners who were carrying

lathis and gandassi (sharp weapon), had common intention to

cause grievous injury upon the complainant-injured. This Court

also finds that in order to prove that injury which is in nature of

grievous hurt, radiologist was not produced before competent

criminal court. Non production of radiologist is certainly

detrimental to the case of the prosecution. It was radiologist who

could have proved that on what basis, the injury sustained by

complainant was found to be grievous in nature. This Court cannot

lose sight of the fact that the incident case took place way back on

26.02.2000.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the

(5 of 5) [CRLR-456/2003]

crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionists-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the

sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already

undergone by him. The petitioners are on bail. They need not

surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.