Hanuman Singh And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32619)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7852 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32619]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 485/2002

1. Hanuman Singh S/o Mukand Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Ward No.8, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, presently residing at MES Lalgarh.

2. Prahlad Singh S/o Shriman Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Ward No.8, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, presently residing at MES Lalgarh. (At present lodged at Dist. Jail, Sri Ganganagar in the process of transfer to Central Jail, Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Choudhary on behalf of Mr. PR Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

04/10/2023

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners

challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal

No.7/2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar

(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the

appellate court while dismissing the petitioners' appeal, upheld the

judgment dated 30.01.2001 passed in Cr. Regular Case

No.106/1999 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Sadulshahar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby,

the learned trial court court convicted and sentenced the present

petitioners as under :

Offence U/s 341 IPC : One month's S.I. each.

[2023:RJ-JD:32619] (2 of 4) [CRLR-485/2002]

Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.I.

Offence U/s 325/34 IPC : Two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that the

petitioner No.1 Hanuman Singh has expired on 31.01.2015. Death

certificate is also submitted, which is taken on record.

Since the petitioner No.1 Hanuman Singh has expired,

therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as abated qua

petitioner No.1.

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.1999, complainant

Siya Ram lodged a report at Police Station Lalgarh alleging inter-

alia that he used to reside in MES Quarter No.8 with his family in

upper floor. In MSE, Hanuman Singh (petitioner No.1) is a painter

and Prahlad Singh (petitioner No.2) is a chowkidar and their

quarters are situated in the nearby block. It is further alleged that

there was quarrel between the complainant and his wife and the

petitioners used to intervene in the matter. Due to which, the

complainant was enraged with the petitioners. On 22.03.1999 at

about 9-9:30 AM, there was scuffle between the complainant and

his wife, at that time, both the petitioners came and took the

complainant down and beat him with first kicks and sticks. On

which, his wife and children intervened and rescued the

complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to his office, where

also the petitioners started quarrel with the complainant. On this

[2023:RJ-JD:32619] (3 of 4) [CRLR-485/2002]

report, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 341,

323, 325 R/w Section 34 IPC against the petitioners and started

investigation.

After investigation, the police filed challan against the

petitioners. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial

court against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as 5 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the

accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 30.01.2001 convicted and sentenced

the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the

petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,

which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2002.

Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of

the accused-petitioners.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners

submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but

since the occurrence is related to the year 1999 and out of total

sentence of two years S.I., the accused petitioner No.2 Prahlad

Singh has already served eleven days of imprisonment, therefore,

it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner No.2 for the

aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-

[2023:RJ-JD:32619] (4 of 4) [CRLR-485/2002]

petitioners and 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.

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.

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1999 and

the petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of eleven days

in custody out of two years of total sentence, so also suffered the

agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all

circumstances and the fact that the petitioner No.2 has remained

behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the

sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections

341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is

reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner No.2.

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner No.2's conviction for offence under

Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him

for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is also waived. The

petitioner No.2 Prahlad Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stand

discharged.

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be

sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 7-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)