Bhajan Lal And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:33565)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7851 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33565]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 98/2003

1.     Bhajan Lal s/o Shera Ram (died on 9.7.2013)
2.     Dharmpal s/o Bhajan Lal
3.     Nand Lal s/o Bhajan Lal
4.     Akshay Kumar s/o Bhajan Lal
       residents of PSD(A), PS Rawla, District Sriganganagar.
5.     Krishna Lal s/o Ramchandra, resident of Chunavarh, Tehsil
       & District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Dr.RDSS Kharlia.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Laxman Solanki, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

04/10/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

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

18.1.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track), Anoopgarh in Cr.Appeal No.174/2002 whereby acquitting

the petitioners from the offence under Section 341 IPC and

quashing the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to

the petitioners, the judgment dated 6.10.1999 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh in Cr.Original Case

No.78/1997 was upheld to the extent of conviction of the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 325/149 and

323/149 and were sentences as under:

 [2023:RJ-JD:33565]                       (2 of 4)                      [CRLR-98/2003]


Conviction for offences                                  Sentences
under Sections:
148 IPC                Six months' simple imprisonment.
325/149 IPC            Three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

323/149 IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Apart from above sentences, the petitioners were also

directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- each for being paid to the

complainant Brijlal as compensation.

During pendency of this revision, on 9.7.2013 the petitioner

No.1 Bhajan Lal has died. Thus, the revision to the extent of

petitioner No.1 Bhajan Lal abates and is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners further

submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionists-

petitioners were suspended by this Court, vide order dated

28.1.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Petition No.55/2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against them since 1997. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a

long protracted trial and therefore, without making any

interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the

present revisionists-petitioners may be substituted with the period

of sentences already undergone by them.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.

[2023:RJ-JD:33565] (3 of 4) [CRLR-98/2003]

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners and

learned Public Prosecutor.

This Court is conscious of judgments passed by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira

Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada

Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein it was

observed that there is no straitjacket formula to sentence an

accused on proof of crime. It was further observed by Hon'ble the

Apex Court that the sentence that would meet the ends of justice

depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it must

be kept in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime,

nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.

A perusal of the orders impugned makes it evident that the

alleged incident happened in the year 1994. The revisionist-

petitioners are victims of a long protracted trial and it would not

be just to sentence the revisionist-petitioners at such a belated

stage. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the

revisionist-petitioners had inflicted injuries upon injured persons

and therefore, a sum of Rs.7,000/- each would be a just and

reasonable compensation to the victim.

In the light of aforesaid discussion 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 148, 325/149, 323/149

IPC, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period

already undergone by them. This Court however, deems it

[2023:RJ-JD:33565] (4 of 4) [CRLR-98/2003]

appropriate to modify the judgment dated 18.1.2003 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh to the

extent that revisionist petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-

each, instead of Rs.5,000/-, as compensation to the victim. The

revisionist-petitioners shall deposit the amount of compensation

of Rs.7,000/- each within a period of three months from the date

of this order. The amount of compensation, if any, deposited by

the petitioners in compliance of the order of the appellate court

shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount of compensation.

The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail

bonds stand discharged accordingly.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below

forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)