Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mithu Ram And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28704) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28704]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 841/2008
1. Mithu Ram S/o Gurdial Singh, R/o 4-FDM
2. Sawan Ram S/o Deva Ram, R/o 4-FDM
3. Janta S/o Dharma Ram, R/o 4-FDM
4. Arjan Ram S/o Sucha Singh, R/o 4-FDM
5. Gulzar Ram S/o Arjan Ram, R/o 4-FDM
6. Krishan Ram S/o Sucha Singh, R/o 4-FDM
7. Sukhdev Ram S/o Sadhu Ram, R/o 4-FDM
8. Doulat Ram S/o Sawan Ram, R/o 4-FDM
9. Bhola Ram S/o Jiwan Ram, R/o 4-FDM
10. Kripal Singh S/o Arjan Ram, R/o 4-FDM
All Tehsil & PS -Suratgarh Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
02/07/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal revision petition, the
petitioners-accused have challenged the order dated 05.08.2008
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in
Criminal Appeal No. 48/2004, wherein the order of conviction and
sentence dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Shri Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No.
98/2001 for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 was confirmed.
[2025:RJ-JD:28704] (2 of 5) [CRLR-841/2008]
2. The learned trial court vide order of conviction and judgment
dated 30.11.2004 was pleased to convict the accused petitioners
and sentenced them as under: -
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION SENTENCE
9/51 Wildlife Protection Act Two year's R.I and a fine of
Rs.1000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo 6 months' R.I.
3. As, per the prosecution's case, on 01.01.2001, a team of
Police Station Sri Vijaynagar during routine patrolling found one
tractor near Gandhi Chowk. Upon searching the said tractor and
the trolley attached to it, the police team recovered two dead
bodies of Nilgae (Blue bull) concealed under the grass from the
trolley. The petitioners and co-accused persons who were present
in the tractor trolley were arrested on the spot.
4. On the basis of the said recovery, an FIR bearing registration
No.01/2001 came to be registered at Police Station Sri Vijay Nagar
against the petitioners and co-accused persons for the offence
under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the
investigation was commenced. After concluding the investigation,
the investigating agency filed chargesheet against the petitioners
for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
Upon completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted and
sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment and order
dated 30.11.2004. The learned Appellate Court vide its judgment
dated 05.08.2008 affirmed the order of conviction dated
30.11.2004.
[2025:RJ-JD:28704] (3 of 5) [CRLR-841/2008]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
incident related to the year 2001. Learned counsel submitted that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Learned
counsel further submitted that there is no positive evidence
available on record indicating guilt of the petitioners in
commission of the alleged crime.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence so
awarded to the petitioners was suspended by this Court vide order
dated 11.08.2008 passed in S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail (Suspension of
Sentence) Application No.283/2008.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners in the alternative
submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 2001 and the
petitioners have already served some part of the sentence
awarded to them. The petitioners are facing agony of a long
protracted trial and therefore, the sentence awarded to them may
be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by
them.
8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever
and therefore, the same do not call for any interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he was
not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision
petition is pending since 2008.
9. Heard.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2001 and the present
[2025:RJ-JD:28704] (4 of 5) [CRLR-841/2008]
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008. The record of
the case indicates that petitioners have already undergone
detention for some period and since the case is pending before
this Court since 2008, the petitioners have suffered both financial
hardships and mental agony.
11. 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 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..."
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the
alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that since the petitioners have already undergone detention for
some period, thus, without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioners
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by them, deserves acceptance.
[2025:RJ-JD:28704] (5 of 5) [CRLR-841/2008]
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioners for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife
Protection Act, 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.
14. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of
accordingly.
15. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
13-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
