Rajasthan High Court
Puran Mal vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:6204) on 6 February, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:6204]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 429/1995
Puran Mal son of Bansidhar, aged about 28 years, Resident of
Sunderpura Thana Pragpura, District Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi & Ms. Supriya
Dharmawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
06/02/2024
1. The present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant -
Puran Mal against the judgment and order of sentence dated
27.07.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali,
District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.70/1992 titled as "State of
Rajasthan vs. Puranmal & ors." whereby, accused-appellant was
convicted for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment.
2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written
report submitted by complainant - Matadeen Sharma with respect
to an incident, which occurred on 29.12.1990, F.I.R. No. 184/1990
was registered at Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur for the
offences under Sections 147, 452 & 323 of I.P.C. During
investigation, injured Chaturbhuj died, therefore, police added
Section 302 of I.P.C. After investigation, police submitted charge-
[2024:RJ-JP:6204] (2 of 4) [CRLA-429/1995]
sheet against appellant and others for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149 & 302 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges and
trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court
passed judgment and order of sentence dated 27.07.1995
acquitting the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 148
& 302/149 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced him for the
offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.07.1995, appellant
has preferred this criminal appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned
counsel for the appellant does not wish to press instant criminal
appeal in respect of judgment of conviction passed by the trial
court qua appellant and prefers to make submissions on the point
of sentence only.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that incident in the
present case took place way back in the year 1990 i.e. more than
33 years ago; appellant was 28 years of age at the time of
incident and now he is around 61 years old and facing agony of
trial since last more than 33 years; out of total 4 accused, one
Banshi died during trial and remaining two were acquitted of
offences under Sections 147, 148 & 302 read with Section 149 of
I.P.C.; appellant belongs to poor strata of society and remained in
police and judicial custody for a period of almost six months and
there is no previous conviction recorded against the appellant,
therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient
view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment
[2024:RJ-JP:6204] (3 of 4) [CRLA-429/1995]
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the
appeal, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the
trial court, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to
be disproportionate. However, learned Public Prosecutor has fairly
conceded that no appeal against acquittal of the accused-appellant
for offences under Sections 147, 148 & 302/149 of I.P.C. has been
filed by the State.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and
have gone through impugned judgment and record of the case.
8. Since the appeal against conviction of the accused-appellant
is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed
which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the
trial court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of
conviction qua appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction
passed by the trial court qua appellant is maintained.
9. As far as question of sentence is concerned, after perusing
judgment and order impugned and considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that appellant had
remained in custody for a period of almost five months during
investigation & trial and is facing the trial since last more than 33
years and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the
appellant is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that
no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.
[2024:RJ-JP:6204] (4 of 4) [CRLA-429/1995]
10. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.1995
passed by the learned trial court qua the appellant is affirmed but
the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial
court is modified to the extent that sentence of one year simple
imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offence under
Section 323 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone
by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the
interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not to
surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this order along with record be sent to the trial
court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
INDER/Coupl.1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
