Rajasthan High Court

Jagdish And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:36006) on 22 August, 2024

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:36006]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 63/1994

  1. Jagdish S/o Shri Lichman Ram
  2. Bhagirath S/o Shri Bhanna Ram
  3. Nopa Ram S/o Shri Bhallu Ram
   All residents of Village Dhandhan, Police Station Ramgarh
Sethan, District Sikar.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal with Ms. Swati Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakad, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

22/08/2024

1. Challenge in the present criminal appeal filed by the

accused- appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, has been made to the judgment dated

02.02.1994 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Sikar (for short the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No.

35/1990 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish & Ors.) whereby the

learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-

appellants as under:-

Section 304 Part-II IPC:-

Eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

500/- each and in and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

[2024:RJ-JP:36006] (2 of 6) [CRLA-63/1994]

Section 342 of the IPC:-

One month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

simple imprisonment for seven (7) days, each.

Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the present case are, that the complainant

Sultan had lodged a report at the police station Ramgarh Sethan,

District Sikar stating that last night Prahlad had informed him that

his brother Mohan Lal had been tied with a tree in the house of

Lichman Ram. On receiving the aforesaid information, the

informant along with Prahlad and Bhura Ram went to the

residence of Lichman Ram and found that Bhagirath was beating

his brother Mohan Lal with a stick. Thereafter, Mohal Lal was

rescued by Lachha Ram, Panney Singh, Har Lal and Kesar and was

brought to his residence. Complainant further mentioned that

Mohan Lal had asked for some water and also complained about

pain in the chest. Subsequently, Mohan Lal died.

On the basis of aforesaid report, the instant FIR came to

registered by the police for the offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 149, 341 & 302 of IPC and investigation commenced.

3. After completion of the investigation the police

submitted charge sheet against the accused- appellants for

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 & 302 of

IPC.

4. Trial Court after taking cognizance against the accused-

appellants framed charges for the aforesaid offences. The

accused- appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

[2024:RJ-JP:36006] (3 of 6) [CRLA-63/1994]

5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined

eighteen (18) witnesses and exhibited certain documents

thereafter the statements of the accused- appellants under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence the accused-

appellants did not produce any evidence.

6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.1994

convicted and sentence the accused- appellants for the offences

as mentioned above.

7. Learned counsel for the accused- appellants submits

that the sentence, so awarded to the accused-appellants, was

suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order

dated 25.02.1994. Counsel for the accused- appellants submits

that the appellants have remained in custody for a period of

approx four months twenty days. Counsel further submits that the

alleged incident is of 22.10.1986 and since then the accused-

appellants are facing mental agony and harassment. Counsel

makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference

on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present

accused- appellants may be substituted with the period of

sentence already undergone by them.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants.

9. Heard. Perused the record.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Puttaswamy vs. State

of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623),

wherein the accused person was convicted for committing offence

punishable under Secs. 279 and 304A IPC, reduced the sentence

to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs.

[2024:RJ-JP:36006] (4 of 6) [CRLA-63/1994]

2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7

years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor.

11. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

(Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022),

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts &

circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for

offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute,

observed as under:-

"43.............we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said

-"The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future". One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."

(Emphasis Supplied)

This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from

hereinabove, that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz (supra),

held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the

sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed

when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to

reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the

time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts,

with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the

facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit

case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the

sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them.

12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,

Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2

[2024:RJ-JP:36006] (5 of 6) [CRLA-63/1994]

SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC

678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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......."

13. The present matter pertains to an incident which

occurred in year 1986 and this criminal appeal has been pending

since year 1994.

14. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of

the appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent

laws, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly,

while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the

offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 & 302 IPC. The

sentence awarded to the accused-appellants are reduced to the

period already undergone by them. The appellants are not in

judicial custody, thus, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds

stand discharged accordingly.

15. In view of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.,

appellants namely:- Jagdish S/o Shri Lichman Ram, Bhagirath S/o

[2024:RJ-JP:36006] (6 of 6) [CRLA-63/1994]

Shri Bhanna Ram & Nopa Ram S/o Shri Bhallu Ram are directed to

furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each, and a

surety in the like amount each, before the Registrar (Judicial) of

this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with

stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed

against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants

aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the

Supreme Court.