Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sattar Khan And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:30366) on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:30366]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 614/2003
1. Sattar Khan S/o Yaseen Khan
2. Sanif S/o Iliyas Khan
Both B/c Kayamkhani R/o Ward No.27, Churu
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF ORDER ::: 06/09/2023
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 11.07.2003
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in
Criminal appeal No.34/2003 whereby the learned Judge affirmed
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.06.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in
Criminal Regular Case No.331/2001; the petitioners were
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of the Offence Substantive Fine and default
accused for which sentence sentence
convicted
1.Sattar Khan 341 IPC One month's SI -
2.Sanif 323 IPC One month's SI -
324/34 IPC Six months' SI -
[2023:RJ-JD:30366] (2 of 5) [CRLR-614/2003]
325/34 IPC One year's SI Fine of Rs.100/- and in
default of payment of fine
to further undergo one
month's SI
326/34 IPC Three Year's SI Fine of Rs.100/- and in
default of payment of fine
to further undergo one
month's SI
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.11.2000,
a parcha bayan (Ex.P/2) of Mohd. Aarif was recorded at Police
Station Kotwali, Churu to the effect that today at about 10:00 P.M.
when he and Pappu while returning from the marriage ceremony
of Yasin's son reached near the Ojha Wali street, a jeep bearing
registration number RJ19C-1408 came from their back side, 6-7
persons came down from it and surrounded therm amongst
whom, he knew only Satar and Sharif only. Satar was armed with
hockey and Sanif was having sword stick dragger in his hand.
Satar inflicted hockey blow on the legs of Aarif resulting which he
fell down whereas Sanif inflicted blow by sword-stick on the left
hand and other assailants inflicted lathi blow. On making hue and
cry by him and Pappu, persons residing in nearby vicinity gathered
there upon which, the assailants fled away. Upon Parcha Bayan
(Ex.P/2), an FIR No.397/2000 under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148
and 149 IPC was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Churu
and investigation commenced. Injured Aarif for sent for medical
examination. Necessary exhibits were prepared thereafter, charge
sheet was filed in the Court concerned against the accused-Sanif
under Sections 323, 324, 326, 325/34 and 341 of the IPC and
[2023:RJ-JD:30366] (3 of 5) [CRLR-614/2003]
under Sections 323, 324/34, 341, 326/34 and 325/34 of the IPC
for the rest of the accused. Accused Satar, Sanif and Liliya were
arrested.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were
examined and 21 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for
the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offences as stated above vide judgment dated 10.06.2003.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal
before the Additional Session Judge, Churu which was affirmed
vide judgment 11.07.2003. Both these judgments are under assail
before this court in the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta, representing the
petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 2000. They had remained in jail for some time during the
proceedings of trial and thereafter the judgment passed in appeal.
Other than the present one, only no other case for the offence has
been reported against them. They belong to a very poor family
and are weaker persons of the society. The petitioners Satar and
Sanif were 28 and 25 years of age at the time of incident and
[2023:RJ-JD:30366] (4 of 5) [CRLR-614/2003]
presently they are 51 and 48 years old. They are facing trial since
the year 2000 and have languished in jail for a considerable
period, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their
sentence.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that
the petitioners have remained behind the bars for a considerable
period and except the present one, no other case has been
registered against the petitioners.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court,
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
7. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true
that the petitioner remained behind the bars about 2 months
during trial and after the judgment passed by the appellate Court.
Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West
Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony
Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648
and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is
pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has
suffered more than 8 months' incarceration out of the sentence of
3 years imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced
financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court
[2023:RJ-JD:30366] (5 of 5) [CRLR-614/2003]
deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of
imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2003 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Regular Case
No.331/2001 as well as the judgment of appeal dated 11.07.2003
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in
Criminal appeal No.34/2003 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the
extent that the sentence they have undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail
bonds are cancelled.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
17. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
24-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
