Rajasthan High Court
Sonya vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:21655) on 7 May, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:21655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 117/1989
Sonya son of Syodan Gujar, resident of Hariki (Kalyanpur) Police
Station Keladevi, District Sawai Madhopur
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Sharma with
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
07/05/2024
This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant
(for brevity "the appellant") against the judgment dated
29.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karauli (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in
Sessions Case No.228/88 whereby, while acquitting him from the
charges for the offence under Sections 302 & 447 IPC, he has
been convicted and sentenced as under:-
(i). under Section 304 Part II IPC:- 5 years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of ₹500/-; in default whereof, 6 months'
additional imprisonment.
The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant-Mandu
son of Madan (PW-1) lodged a written report dated 04.08.1988
with the Station House Officer, Police Station Keladevi, District
Sawai Madhopur alleging therein that on the previous day at about
[2024:RJ-JP:21655] (2 of 5) [CRLA-117/1989]
4 PM, on account of a quarrel in between the appellant, co-
accused Surgyan and Hatya son of Syodan and Chhotya son of
Hatya related to grazing of an animal, Sonya hit Hatya on his head
with a Lathi resulting into his death whereupon, an FIR dated even
(Exhibit P-2) came to be registered against the appellant and the
co-accused person. The police after investigation filed charge-
sheet against the appellant and the co-accused person. The
learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under
Sections 302 & 447 IPC and against the co-accused person under
Section 302/34 & 447 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and demanded
trial. After trial, while, the co-accused Surgyan was acquitted by
the learend trial Court vide judgment dated 29.03.1989, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated
hereinabove.
Eschewing merits of the case, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the incident had occurred in the year 1988
when the appellant was a young boy of 25 years of age and has
suffered physical as well as mental trauma of pendency of this
litigation for about 36 years. He submits that the parties are
closely related and the incident occurred at the spur of moment,
he has no criminal antecedents, he has served the sentence of
more than five months and twenty one days and prays for
reduction of the substantive sentence awarded to him to the
period of sentence already undergone. Learned counsel prays that
while maintaining the conviction, the sentence may be reduced to
the period already undergone. He, in support of his submissions,
relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
[2024:RJ-JP:21655] (3 of 5) [CRLA-117/1989]
Brijesh Kumar @ Dabboo & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan
& Ors. :2010(3) R.C.C. 1246.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the material on record reveals that the incident
occurred in between the family members at the spur of moment
with regard to grazing of an animal without any premeditation and
the learned trial Court has also acquitted the appellant from the
charge for offence under Section 447 of IPC recording the similar
findings. The incident is about 36 years old and the appellant, who
was aged about 25 years of age as per the arrest memo (Exhibit
P-15), is aged now about 61 years and has been facing physical
and mental trauma of pendency of this criminal case for this long
period. In almost identical facts and circumstances, in the case of
Brijesh Kumar @ Dabboo & Anr. (supra), the substantive
sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the
accused-appellant on his conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC
was reduced by a Division Bench of this Court to the sentence of
nine months and three days, i.e., already undergone altering his
conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Their Lordships have held in the cases of Alister Anthony
Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012:
(2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.
MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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
[2024:RJ-JP:21655] (4 of 5) [CRLA-117/1989]
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..."
In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and in the facts
and circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, this Court
deems it just and proper to partly allow this appeal in following
terms:-
1. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned
trial Court vide judgment dated 29.03.1989 is maintained.
2. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellant
under Section 304 Part II IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone.
3. Two months' time is granted to the appellant to deposit
the fine of ₹ 500/- awarded under Section 304 Part II IPC
with the learned trial Court failing which the learned trial
Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentence
awarded to the appellant in default of payment.
[2024:RJ-JP:21655] (5 of 5) [CRLA-117/1989]
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the
appellant namely Sonya son of Syodan Gujar is directed to
furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- and a surety in
the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which
shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation
that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the
judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt
of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
