Manohari vs State (2023:Rj-Jp:22296)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4727 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4727 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

Manohari vs State (2023:Rj-Jp:22296) on 12 September, 2023

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2023:RJ-JP:22296]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 489/1987

Manohari S/o Rewadya, Resident of Village Sipni, P.S. Manpur,
District Jaipur. (at present in sub-jail, Dausa)
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                        Versus
The State of Rajasthan through G.A.
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary with Ms. Pooja Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

12/09/2023

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the

judgment dated 31.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur (for brevity "the learned

trial Court") in Sessions Case No.32/1984: State of Rajasthan

versus Manohari whereby, the accused-appellant (for brevity, "the

appellant") has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section 304 Part II IPC:- 5 years' rigorous

imprisonment with fine of ₹4,000/-; in default thereof, one and

half years' rigorous imprisonment.

The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated

13.04.1984 (Exhibit-P-2) came to be lodged by complainant Shri

Phoolchand (PW-2) with the Police Station Manpur, District Jaipur

alleging therein that the appellant has inflicted a lathi blow on the

[2023:RJ-JP:22296] (2 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987]

head of his mother resulting into her death whereupon, an FIR

no.59/1984 under Section 302 IPC was registered against him.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under

Section 302 IPC against him. After committal, the learned trial

Court framed charge against the appellant under the aforesaid

provision. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.

The learned trial Court has, after trial, convicted and sentenced

the appellant vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 as stated

hereinabove.

Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the incident is about 39 and half years old,

the appellant, who was aged about 28 years at that time, is 67

years of age today and has already remained in custody for a

period of about ten months and ten days. He, in the aforesaid

circumstances, submits that he would be contended if, while

maintaining the conviction, sentence awarded is reduced to the

period already undergone.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

Heard. Considered.

The incident is dated 13.04.1984, the appellant, who, as per

the arrest memo (Ex-P-7) dated 15.04.1984 was aged about 28

years, is now aged about 67 years and has remained in custody

pre-conviction for a period of about 9 months and post-conviction

for a period of about 1 month and 10 days before sentence

awarded to him vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 was suspended

by this Court vide order dated 09.12.1987.

[2023:RJ-JP:22296] (3 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987]

Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony

Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012:

(2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.

MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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 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..."

Their Lordships, have held in case of, Panchashila Dada

Messhram versus State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 81,

as under:-

"8. However, as far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that at the time of incident, the appellant was in advanced stage of her pregnancy and had given

[2023:RJ-JP:22296] (4 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987]

birth to a girl child which had expired soon after the birth. The evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates that the husband of the appellant was coming near the bathroom with a cane so as to prevent the deceased from coming out of the bathroom. Such an act is not attributed to the appellant at all. As on today, the appellant is of more than 67 years of age. The record further indicates that the appellant has also a major daughter, who was aged 10 years at the time of the incident and a son. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."

This Court has also, vide judgment dated 31.08.2023 in case

of Gurudyal Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal

Appeal No.83/1989, in the case of conviction under Section 304

Part II IPC, in identical facts and circumstances of the case, while

maintaining the conviction, has reduced the sentence to the period

already undergone.

[2023:RJ-JP:22296] (5 of 5) [CRLA-489/1987]

In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, the prayer

made by the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While

maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the

learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.10.1987, the