Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8757) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:8757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 582/2006
1. Madan Singh S/o Sh. Ladu Singh Rawat
2. Trilok Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh Rawat
3. Mishru Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh Rawat
All resident of Village Amarpura, Tehsil Bheem, District
Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mridul Jain
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
12/02/2025
Shri Mridul Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioner No.1 - Madan Singh has passed
away.
In view of the above statement that the petitioner No.1 has
passed away, the present criminal revision petition is abated and
dismissed qua the petitioner No.1 - Madan Singh.
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against
the judgment dated 04.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal
No.21/2006 whereby the judgment dated 02.11.2004 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem, District
Rajsamand in Criminal Original Case No.259/2000 was confirmed.
[2025:RJ-JD:8757] (2 of 4) [CRLR-582/2006]
The learned trial court vide order dated 02.11.2004
convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners No.1 and No.2 as
below:
Offence Under Section Sentence
341 IPC One Month's S.I.
323 IPC Six Months' S.I.
325/34 IPC Two Years' S.I and a fine of Rs.2,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo three months' S.I.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on
29.08.2000, Bhagwan Singh submitted an oral complaint to the
SHO of Police Station Bheem, District Rajsamand alleging interalia
that when he was going towards his house and reached near Teja
Ji Maharaj's place, the petitioners and co-accused persons armed
with blunt weapons (lathis) stopped him and started beating him.
Hearing his hue and cry, Laxman Singh and Veeram Singh reached
the place of incident and intervened. In the aforesaid incident,
Bhagwan Singh sustained several injuries.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 334/2000
was registered at Police Station Bheem against the accused-
petitioners and other co-accused persons for the offences under
Sections 143, 323 & 325/34 of IPC and investigation was
commenced. The investigating agency after conducting thorough
investigation in the matter filed the charge sheet against the
petitioners and co-accused persons for the aforementioned
offences. Upon completion of the trial, the petitioners were
convicted by the learned trial court below for the offences under
Sections 341, 323 & 325/34 of IPC vide judgment dated
[2025:RJ-JD:8757] (3 of 4) [CRLR-582/2006]
02.11.2004 which was affirmed by the learned appellate court
vide judgment dated 04.07.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioners were suspended by this
Court vide order dated 26.07.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.181/2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2000. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a
long protracted trial and therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentences already undergone by them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to
dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2006.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2006.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648
and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8757] (4 of 4) [CRLR-582/2006]
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 light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
revisionist-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34
of IPC, the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned courts below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
20-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
