Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dayal Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2732) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2732]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1074/2003
1. Dayal Singh S/o Shri Hernam Singh, B/c Babri, R/o 13 H, At
present 2 KND District Ganganagar.
2. Binder Singh S/o Dayal Singh, B/c Babri, R/o 13 H, At present
2 KND District Ganganagar.
3. Chand Singh S/o Sh. Bhiya Ram, B/c Babri, R/o 13 H, At
present 2 KND District Ganganagar.
(At present lodged in Sub Jail, Srikaranpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas K Bishnoi for
Mr. V.K. Bhadu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
15/01/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
14.11.2003 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Sri
Karanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.8/2003 by which the appellate court dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated
23.02.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
& Civil Judge (S.D.), Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case
No.435/1989, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the present petitioners as under :
[2025:RJ-JD:2732] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1074/2003]
Appellant No.1-Dayal Singh
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 326 IPC Two Years' RI Rs.100/- and in default of
payment of fine, 2 months' RI
Sec. 323 IPC One Year's SI ----
Appellant No.2-Binder Singh & Chand Singh
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 326/34 IPC Two Years' RI Rs.100/- and in default of
payment of fine, 2 months' RI
Sec. 323 IPC One Year's SI ----
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is also
ordered by the trial Court that accused/appellants were ordered to
be paid Rs.1500/- to injured Lal Singh.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant-injured Kaji
Singh @ Lal Singh gave the statement during his treatment to the
effect that on 25.09.1989 at about 8.00 P.M. he was standing
outside his house. At that time, all the accused petitioners came
with lathis and assaulted to the complainant. On this report, the
police registered the case against accused-petitioners for offence
under Sections 326, 326/34 & 323 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the
case were framed against the accused-petitioners, who denied the
charges and claimed for trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen
witnesses and also exhibited twenty one documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
[2025:RJ-JD:2732] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1074/2003]
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 23.02.1999 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.11.2003. Hence,
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 1989 and the petitioners have so
far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence
of two years' R.I. each. In such circumstances, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for
the offence under Sections 326, 326/34 & 323 IPC may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioners 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-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1989 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a
period of one month's incarceration, out of total sentence of two
[2025:RJ-JD:2732] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1074/2003]
years' R.I. each, 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-petitioners have
remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper
if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Sections 326, 326/34 & 323 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate
court is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 326, 326/34 & 323 IPC, the sentence
awarded to them for aforesaid offences are hereby reduced to the
period already undergone, however, the amount of fine, as
imposed by the learned trial Court, is already paid by them. So far
as the deposition of Rs.1,500/- to the injured is concerned, in this
regard it is ordered that the petitioners are directed to pay
Rs.1,500/- to the injured-Lal Singh and if any amount has already
paid then the same may be adjusted. In default of payment of
Rs.1,500/-, the petitioners shall undergo one months' S.I. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
5-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
