Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jethu Singh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10135) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10135]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1138/2003
1. Jethu Singh S/o Padam Singh R/o Nun, P.S. Bagera District
Jalore.
2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Jethu Singh R/o Nun, P.S. Bagera District
Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/02/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report dated
09.05.2024 received from SHO, Police Station Bagra, District
Jalore wherein it is mentioned that petitioner No.1 - Jethu Singh
passed away long back.
2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present revision
petition qua the petitioner No.1 - Jethu Singh is hereby dismissed
as abated.
3. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 31.10.2003 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.23/2003
whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.03.1998 passed
by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore
[2025:RJ-JD:10135] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1138/2003]
in Criminal Case No.355/1993 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326 IPC 2 years' RI Rs.5,000/- 6 months' SI
Section 447 IPC 3 months' RI Rs.500/- 15 days' SI
4. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 27.04.1988, PW.5
Jeev Singh gave an oral report at Police Station Bagra alleging
that today at about 4 PM he along with his son Bhanwar Singh
were doing agricultural work in his field. At that time, present
petitioners along with other accused persons were cutting babool
tree and making a fence at complainant's field. When
complainant's son Bhanwar Singh went to stop them, the present
petitioners and other accused persons started beating him. Upon
the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual
investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the
petitioner in the Court concerned.
6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 148, 447 & 326 of IPC and upon denial
of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and some
documents were exhibited. In defence, three witnesses were
examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties and meticulous appreciation of
[2025:RJ-JD:10135] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1138/2003]
the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 148, 447 & 326 of IPC vide judgment
dated 25.03.1998 and sentenced him as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal
before the Sessions Judge, which was partly allowed vide
judgment dated 31.10.2003. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Purohit, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and partly allowed by the learned appellate
court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took
place in the year 1988. He had remained in jail for about 2
months & 25 days after passing of the judgment by the appellate
court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from
a very poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society.
He was about 20 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged
about about 47 years and he is facing trial since the year 1988
and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient
view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
8. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 2 months &
25 days and except the present one no other case has been
registered against him.
9. 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,
[2025:RJ-JD:10135] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1138/2003]
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor
for last 37 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 petitioner, their status in the society and the fact that
the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days and the
maximum sentence imposed upon him is of two years as well as
the fact that he 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 petitioner has
already undergone till date.
11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
31.10.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal
Appeal No.23/2003 and the judgment dated 25.03.1998 passed
by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalore in Case No.355/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of
sentence modified by the learned appellate Court is re-modified to
the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine
amount is maintained. The amount of fine modified by the
appellate Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then
two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount
[2025:RJ-JD:10135] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1138/2003]
before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
shall undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
12. The revision petition is allowed in part.
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
4-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
