Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shaymu @ Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9912) on 27 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:9912]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1056/2022
Shaymu @ Shyamlal S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 40 Years, B/c
Meena R/o Machlaya Ps Arnod Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present
Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
27/02/2024
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
25.07.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal
No.52/2018 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arnod, Pratapgarh
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case
No.47/2010, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced each of the present petitioner as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC 1 month SI Rs.100/- 2 days SI
2. 323/34 IPC 3 months SI Rs.300/- 7 days SI
3. 324/34 IPC 1 year SI Rs.1,000/- 1 month SI
[2024:RJ-JD:9912] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2022]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Hamera Meghwal
lodged a written report at Police Station Arnod to the effect that on
09.02.2010 at about 5:30 PM, when he along with Kailash and
Babloo was going on JCB, on the way the accused persons came on a
motorcycle and started beating the complainant. On this report, the
police registered the case against the accused persons including the
petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against
the accused persons including the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges for offence under Sections 341, 323,
324/34 IPC against the accused persons including the petitioner, who
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined five
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 08.05.2018 convicted and sentenced the
accused persons including the petitioner for offences as mentioned
earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came
to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.07.2022. Hence this revision
petition.
[2024:RJ-JD:9912] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2022]
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge
the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence
relates back to year 2010 and he has so far suffered a sentence of
about one month & eleven days, out of total sentence of one year's
SI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence
awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections
341, 323/34, 324/34 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 2010 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period
of one month & eleven days incarceration, out of total sentence of
one year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental 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 341, 323/34, 324/34 IPC
and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already
undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
[2024:RJ-JD:9912] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2022]
Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone.
The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is
granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one month's simple
imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the
petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
206-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
