Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheem Singh And Anr vs State Of Raj. (2023:Rj-Jd:41749) on 2 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:41749]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 758/2004
1. Bheem Singh S/o Shri Bhera Ji
2. Smt. Bhanwari Bai W/o Bheem Singh
Both B/c Rawat, R/o Pathon Ki Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/12/2023
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
12.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.4/2004 by which the appellate
court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the
judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan in Criminal Case No.310/1992
whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
present petitioners as under :
Offence U/s 419/120B IPC : Three months' RI and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten
days' S.I.
Offence U/s 465/120B IPC : Three months' RI and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten
days' S.I.
Offence U/s 467 IPC : Six months' RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days' S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2023:RJ-JD:41749] (2 of 4) [CRLR-758/2004]
Brief facts of the case are that on 07.10.1987, complainant
Mst. Lehari Bai filed a complaint before the Munsif & Judicial
Magistrate inter-alia alleging therein that accused Bheem Singh,
who is her real brother-in-law (Jeth), with the connivance of other
accused persons fraudulently sold the land of the complainant to
Mangilal and Veni Ram and a sale-deed in this regard was
executed before the Sub-Registrar, Kapasan.
The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for
investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which, Police
registered a case and started investigation.
After completion of investigation, Police filed challan against
five accused persons including the present petitioners. Thereafter,
the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 419,
420, 465/471, 467, 120B IPC, which were read over to the
accused persons. The accused-persons denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses
in support of its case and also exhibited certain documents.
Thereafter, statements of the accused-persons under section 313
Cr.P.C were recorded. No defence witness was examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 16.12.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused persons including the present petitioners for offences
as mentioned earlier.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners separately preferred an appeal before the learned
[2023:RJ-JD:41749] (3 of 4) [CRLR-758/2004]
appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
12.10.2004. Hence this revision petition against the conviction
and sentence of the accused-petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
01.12.2023 received from the concerned Police Station in which it
has been mentioned that petitioner No.1 Bheem Singh has
expired. The said report is hereby taken on record.
Since the petitioner No.1 has expired, therefore, the present
revision petition is dismissed as abated qua petitioner No.1 Bheem
Singh.
So far as accused-petitioner No.2 is concerned, at the
threshold, learned counsel does not challenge the finding of
conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to
year 1987 and she has so far suffered a sentence of about 15
days out of total sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.2 for the
offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC may be
reduced to the period already undergone by her.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:41749] (4 of 4) [CRLR-758/2004]
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1987 and the accused-petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a
period of 15 days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also
suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking
to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-
petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for considerable
time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial
court for offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC
and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by her while maintaining the fine amount.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner No.2's conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 419/120B, 465/120B, 467 IPC, the
sentence awarded to her for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced
to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial
court is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. If the petitioner
No.2 fails to deposit the fine amount, she shall undergo ten days'
simple imprisonment. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. Her bail
bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
279-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
