Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10132) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10132]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 296/2004
1. Gopal S/o Kalu R/o B-2 Haridas Ji Ki Magri, P.S. Ambamata,
Udaipur.
2. Mohan Lal S/o Kalu R/o B-2 Haridas Ji Ki Magri, P.S.
Ambamata, Udaipur. ----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/02/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 26.04.2004 passed
by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases,
Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2004 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 16.09.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.675/1998 by
which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the
petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 323 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- 15 days' SI
Section 324 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- 15 days' SI
Section 326 IPC (qua 1 year's RI Rs.5,000/ 1 month's SI
Pet. No.1) -
Section 326 R/w 34 6 months' RI Rs.1,000/ 15 days' SI
IPC (qua Pet. No.2) -
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:10132] (2 of 4) [CRLR-296/2004]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 18.10.1998,
injured - Dinesh gave an oral report at General Hospital, Udaipur
to the extent that today at about 10 AM when he was returning
from Haridas Ji ki Magri, the present petitioners along with one
other accused blocked his way. The accused persons having sword
& knife stopped the injured and started assaulting & beating him
with deadly weapons with an intention to kill him. Upon the
aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual
investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the
petitioners in the Court concerned.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324, 341 & 307/34 of
IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 8 witnesses were examined
and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation
was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned
counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of
the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 323, 324, 341 & 307/34 of IPC vide
judgment dated 16.09.2003 and sentenced them as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an
appeal before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.04.2004.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Bajrang Singh Rathore, representing the
petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
[2025:RJ-JD:10132] (3 of 4) [CRLR-296/2004]
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 1998. They had remained in jail for about 18 days after
passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has
been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and
belong to the weaker section of the society. They are facing trial
since the year 1998 and they have languished in jail for some
time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their
sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that
the petitioners have remained behind the bars for about 18 days
and except the present one no other case has been registered
against them.
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court,
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the
rigor for last 27 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.
State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case,
age of the petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that
[2025:RJ-JD:10132] (4 of 4) [CRLR-296/2004]
the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioners have suffered incarceration for some days and the
maximum sentence imposed upon them is of one year as well as
the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through
mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioners have
already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
26.04.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2004 and
the judgment dated 16.09.2003 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.675/1998
is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned
Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence they have
undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the
interest of justice. The fine amount is hereby maintained. The fine
amount imposed by trial Court, if not already deposited, then two
months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial
court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo
one month's S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
5-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
