Gopal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:28463)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6888 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28463]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 90/2001

Gopal S/o Kalyan Nai R/o Karamras, PS Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (At present lodged in Jail Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Usman Gani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

06/09/2023

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated

02.02.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Gulabpura Camp Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred

to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.50/2000 (49/98)

by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the

petitioner and while confirming the conviction for offence under

Sections 326, 323/34 IPC, reduced the sentence as awarded by

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District

Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal

Regular Case No.125/86 vide judgment dated 28.10.1996. The

details of the sentence of the petitioner as reduced by the

appellate court are as under :

Offence U/s 326 IPC : One year's R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default of payment of fine, one month's S.I.

[2023:RJ-JD:28463] (2 of 4) [CRLR-90/2001]

Offence U/s 323/34 IPC : One month's R.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.1986 the

complainant Jamna Lal lodged an FIR at Police Station Shahpura

against the petitioner and two other persons to the effect that

when he went to the house of Dhanna Nai to complain in respect

of beating given by him to his brother Mangilal, then one Mohan

informed him that Dhanna is not at home. After some time, the

petitioner came there having an axe in his hand and inflicted 2-3

blow to the complainant and later on Mohan and Dhanna also

came armed with sticks and started beating the complainant. On

noising hue and cry, Bhura Brahmin, Ugma and Chatarbhuj came

and rescued the complainant.

On this complaint, the police registered the case against the

accused-petitioner and two others for offences under Sections

323, 323/34 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the

police filed challan and thereafter, charges were framed against

the petitioner for offence under Sections 326, 323/34 IPC. The

petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11

witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under

section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. One witness was examined on

the defence side.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 28.10.1996 convicted and sentenced

the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offences.

[2023:RJ-JD:28463] (3 of 4) [CRLR-90/2001]

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.10.1996,

passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before

the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide

judgment dated 02.02.2001 and while confirming the conviction,

reduced the sentence of the petitioner as mentioned above. Hence

this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the

accused-petitioner.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner

does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted

that the occurrence relates back to year 1986 and he has so far

suffered sentence for about two months out of total sentence. In

such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence

awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections

326 & 323/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-

petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any

occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused

petitioner 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-petitioner.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the

year 1986 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a

[2023:RJ-JD:28463] (4 of 4) [CRLR-90/2001]

period of about two months 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 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 326 and 323/34 IPC and reduced

by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone

by him.

Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence

under Sections 326 & 323/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him

for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.500/- imposed for offence

u/S 326 is also waived. The petitioner is on bail. Their bail bonds

stand discharged.

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 1-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)