Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Niwas vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17199) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17199]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 527/2004
Ram Niwas S/o Nathu Ram, by caste Jat, R/o Village Kiroda,
Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary with
Ms. Sampatti Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/04/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
04.08.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities Act) and Addl. Sessions Judge Merta, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.23/2004
(11/03) by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of
the petitioner and modified the judgment of sentence dated
11.02.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Degana, District Nagaur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
court') in Criminal Regular Case No.33/2001. The learned
appellate court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as
under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 341 IPC 1 month's SI ----
Sec. 354 IPC 1 year's SI Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment, further undergo one
month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:17199] (2 of 4) [CRLR-527/2004]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 03.02.2001 complainant Meri
submitted a written report at Police Station Degana, to the effect
that on 02.02.2001 at about 11 A.M. she was going to hospital, at
that time accused restrained her, verbally assaulted her and
employed criminal force with intention to outrage her modesty. On
this report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioner
for offence under Sections 341, 353, 332, 354 and 504 IPC and
started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the accused-petitioner for offence under
Sections 341, 353, 332, 354 and 504 IPC, who denied the charges
and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, certain documents were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 11.02.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 353, 332,
354 and 504 IPC.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 04.08.2004.
Hence, this revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:17199] (3 of 4) [CRLR-527/2004]
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 2001 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about eight days, out of total sentence of
one year's S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections Sections 341 and 354 IPC may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government
Advocate vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate 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 2001 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of about eight 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
reduced by the appellate court for offence under Sections 341 and
354 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
[2025:RJ-JD:17199] (4 of 4) [CRLR-527/2004]
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Sections 341 and 354 IPC the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court
is hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner shall undergone 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
1-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
