Rajasthan High Court

Devilal And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:14983) on 27 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:14983]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1090/2004

1. Devlal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan
2. Sheoji S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan
3. Mohan S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan
4. Ramkuwar So Shri Laxmi Narayan
5. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Chhotu
6. Mangilal S/o Shri Kishna
7. Devlal S/o Shri Gordhan
R/o Village Arnetha, District Bundi, Rajasthan


                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. S.K. Jain
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

                              JUDGMENT

27/03/2024

1. By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397/401

Cr.P.C., the convict-petitioners have challenged the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2004 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal

No.114/1998 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed

the appeal filed by the petitioners and while affirming the

conviction of the accused petitioners for offences under Sections

147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, reduced

the sentences awarded to them by judgment dated 20.06.1997

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case

No.119/86, as below:

 Offences        Sentence                      Fine                     Default Sentence
 147 IPC             3 months' S.I.                       --                      --
 148 IPC             3 month's S.I.                       --                      --
 326/149 IPC         1 Year's R.I.             Rs.500/-                     2 Months' SI
 325/149 IPC         6 Months' RI              Rs.100/-                     10 Days' SI
 324/149 IPC         3 Months' SI                         --                      --
 323/149 IPC One month and                                --                      --
             fifteen days' SI

2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.10.1985, the complainant

Atmaram submitted a written report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station

Keshorai Patan alleging therein that in the morning, he along with

his father Badrinath and one Hali Shankar were doing work. At

that time, the accused persons who were armed with ballam,

gandasi and lathis came there. It was alleged that Shyoji was

having ballam in his hands whereas Devlal, Mangilal and Mohanlal

were having Ghandasi in their hands. Ramswaroop, Ramkunwar

and Devlal were having lathis in their hands. When his father

asked the accused persons to take away the cart through the way,

they accused persons started beating his father due to which, his

father sustained several injuries.

3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.150/1985 was

registered at Police Station Keshorai Patan for offences under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation

was commenced. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet

was filed against the present petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

4. As one of the offences was under Section 307 IPC, the case

was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Bundi. However, the

learned Sessions Court discharged the accused petitioners from

the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and remitted the

matter to the learned trial court for trial for remaining offences.

5. After remittance from the learned Sessions Court, learned

trial court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 326, 326/149, 324/149, 324, 325, 325/149, 323 and

323/149 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as

15 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. After examining the

accused petitioners under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was also

given to them to lead defence evidence. They denied the

prosecution case. The accused Devlal examined himself as DW.1 in

defence.

6. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial

court vide judgment dated 20.06.1997, convicted and sentenced

them for the offences as mentioned above.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.06.1997, an

appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge

No.2, Bundi (Raj.). The learned appellate court vide judgment

dated 04.12.2004 partly allowed the appeal and while affirming

the conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforesaid

offences, reduced the sentences awarded to them by the learned

trial court. Hence this revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during

pendency of this revision petition, the accused petitioners Mangilal

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

and Ramkunwar expired on 09.06.2014 and 09.10.2022

respectively. He has submitted the copies of the death certificates

of both these accused petitioners. Same are taken on record.

9. As the accused petitioners No.4 Ramkunwar and No.6

Mangilal have expired, the instant revision petition stands abated

to the extent of these accused petitioners.

10. Arguing the case for remaining accused petitioners, learned

counsel for the petitioners vehemently and fervently contends that

both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have

erred in convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections

147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. He

further contends that the learned trial court as well as the learned

appellate court did not appreciate the material available on record

in right and correct perspective and committed perversity in

convicting the petitioners. It is contended that as a matter of fact,

the complainant party was the aggressor and firstly, they started

giving beatings to the accused persons for which, an FIR

No.149/1985 was also lodged by the accused persons against the

complainant. Besides this, it is argued that except formal

witnesses, all other prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses

and are the members of one family and therefore, they are not

the trustworthy witness. He also submits that there are several

infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution

witnesses and as such, the conviction based on such evidence is

not sustainable and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

11. His alternative submission is that as the petitioners Mangilal

and Ramkunwar have already expired and the occurrence relates

back to year 1985 and now the petitioners are more than 60 years

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

years of age. The petitioner Devlal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan had

remained in custody for nearly 26 days whereas the other accused

petitioners Sheoji, Mohan, Ramswaroop and Devlal S/o Shri

Gordhan had remained behind the bars for nearly 23 days out of

maximum sentence of one year's imprisonment awarded to them

by the learned appellate court, the substantive sentence awarded

to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the

period already undergone by them.

12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the

learned courts below have rightly recorded conviction of the

accused petitioners, which need not be interfered with by this

court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there

is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders of

sentence.

13. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar

and perused the record. After perusing the judgment passed by

the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and

material available on record as also after re-appreciating the

evidence, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts have

rightly recorded conviction of the accused petitioners for the

aforementioned offences. Both the courts have not committed any

illegality or perversity in recording conviction of the accused

petitioners for the aforesaid offences and same does not require

any interference by this Court. Now comes to the alternative

submission of learned counsel for the petitioners for releasing the

accused petitioners on the period already undergone by them.

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

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

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

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..."

15. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1985 and this revision petition is pending since 2004. A cross FIR

No. 149/1985 was also lodged by the accused side against the

complainant alleging therein that firstly the complainant started

giving beatings to them and they exercised their right of private

defence. Out of the seven accused petitioners, the accused

petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar have already expired. The

petitioner Devlal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan had remained in custody

[2024:RJ-JP:14983] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1090/2004]

for nearly 26 days whereas the other accused petitioners Sheoji,

Mohan, Ramswaroop and Devlal S/o Shri Gordhan had remained

behind the bars for nearly 23 days. The accused petitioners also

suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for last 39 years.