Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2983) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2983]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1165/2023
1. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Kantilal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Khadiya Vas Sheoganj Ps Sheoganj Dist. Sirohi Raj.
2. Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh S/o Shri Ruparam, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Gali No. 1 Nehru Nagar Sheoganj Dist.
Sirohi Raj.
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Tararam, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Vill. Bhankali Ps Smerpur Dist. Pali Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/01/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.32/2016 (CIS
No.32/2016) by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced
the appellants as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC One month's Rs.500/- Three days' S.I.
S.I.
2. 323 IPC Six months' Rs.1,000/- Fifteen days' S.I.
S.I.
3. 325/34 IPC Two years' Rs.10,000/- Three months'
R.I. S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:2983] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023]
Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2016 complainant
Manish Parihar gave a typed report at Police Station Shivganj to the
effect that his father has a shop in Sabji Mandi viz. Nakoda Sabji
Bhandar. On 30.05.2016 after closing the shop, his father Shankar
Lal alongwith his servant came to his home on motorcycle. When
they reached at Azad Chowk, Shivganj at about 10.15 p.m., the
accused stopped his father's motorcycle and attacked with lathis
and rods. Due to which, his father and servant sustained injuries.
On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-
appellants and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the
accused-appellants. Thereafter, the charges for offence under
Sections 307, 341, 323, 325/34 & 307/34 IPC were framed by the
trial court against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited thirty-
one documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellants
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 06.06.2023 convicted and sentenced the
accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid and acquitted
under Section 307/34 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants
submits that they does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2016 and the accused
appellant No.1-Vinod Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of about
seventeen days, appellant No.2-Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh has so far
[2025:RJ-JD:2983] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023]
suffered a sentence of about one year, eight months and seventeen
days and appellant No.3 Suresh Kumar has so far suffered a
sentence of about two months, out of total sentence of two years'
R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted
that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence
awarded to the accused appellants 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 trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellants.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2016 and,
the appellant No.1-Vinod Kumar has so far suffered a sentence of
about seventeen days, appellant No.2-Ganesh Kumar @ Suresh has
so far suffered a sentence of about one year, eight months and
seventeen days and appellant No.3 Suresh Kumar has so far
suffered a sentence of about two months' incarceration, out of total
sentence of two years' R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony
and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the facts that the appellants have remained
behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if
the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
341, 323 & 325/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone
by the appellants.
[2025:RJ-JD:2983] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1165/2023]
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellants' conviction for offence under Sections 341, 323 &
325/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the said offences is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount
imposed by the trial Court is already deposited by the appellants.
The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail
bonds stand discharged.
Application (Inward No.01/24) filed by the appellants is
hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
124-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
