Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Budh Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28705) on 2 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:28705]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 144/2008

Budh Ram S/o Shri Ramuram, R/o Karadwali, Police Station-
Muklawa, Tehsil-Raisinghnagar, District-Ganganagar
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Hemant Jain
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
                                   Mr. Om Prakash, AGA



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

02/07/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal revision petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following

relief:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate order or direction this revision may kindly be accepted and allowed and record of learned court below may kindly be called for and the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2002 - Budh Ram V/s State of Rajasthan may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice and the appeal of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and consequently, the judgment dated 11.12.2001 may kindly ordered to be quashed and set aside...."

2. A challenge has been laid against the order dated

04.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2002, whereby the order

of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2001 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No.

[2025:RJ-JD:28705] (2 of 5) [CRLR-144/2008]

70/1999 for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife

Protection Act, 1972 was confirmed.

3. The learned trial court vide order of conviction and judgment

dated 11.12.2001 was pleased to convict the accused petitioners

and sentenced them as under: -

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION                       SENTENCE
9/51 Wildlife Protection Act                Two year's S.I. and a fine of
                                            Rs.5000/-, and in default of
                                            payment         of   fine,   to   further
                                            undergo 6 months' S.I.

4. As, per the prosecution's case, the on 02.07.1999, the

complainant - Rameshwar filed a complaint before the SHO of

Police Station Muklawa alleging inter alia that on 02.07.1999, the

petitioner had setup a trap for hunting blackbuck. As per the

complaint, the left leg of the blackbuck got entangled in the said

trap, causing the animal to cry out for help. Upon hearing the

distress call, the complainant along with Satpal and Sitaram

rushed to the place of incident and apprehended the petitioner on

the spot.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR bearing

registration No. 94/1999 came to be lodged against the present

petitioner at Police Station Muklawa for the offences under

Sections 9, 15 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act and Section 429 of

IPC and the investigation was commenced. Upon completing the

investigation, the investigating agency filed the chargesheet

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section

9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act. Upon completion of the trial,

the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for

[2025:RJ-JD:28705] (3 of 5) [CRLR-144/2008]

the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act vide

judgment and order dated 11.12.2001. The learned Appellate

Court vide its judgment dated 04.02.2008 affirmed the order of

conviction dated 11.12.2001.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

incident related to the year 1999. Learned counsel submitted that

the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned

counsel further submitted that there is no positive evidence

available on record indicating guilt of the petitioner in commission

of the alleged crime.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence so

awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order

dated 22.02.2008 passed in S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail (Suspension of

Sentence) Application No.20/2008.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative

submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1999 and the

petitioner has already served some part of the sentences awarded

to him. The petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and

therefore, the sentences awarded to him may be substituted with

the period of sentences already undergone by him.

9. 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:28705] (4 of 5) [CRLR-144/2008]

10. Heard.

11. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1999 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008. The record of

the case further indicates that petitioner has already undergone

detention for some period and since the case is pending before

this Court since 2008, the petitioner has suffered both financial

hardships and mental agony.

12. 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..."

13. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the

alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that since the petitioner has already undergone detention for

some period, thus, without making any interference on

[2025:RJ-JD:28705] (5 of 5) [CRLR-144/2008]

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner

may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone

by him, deserves acceptance.

14. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner 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 him. The petitioner is