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
on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
15. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of
accordingly.
16. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
7-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
