Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Moiya @ Mohan Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28915)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1794 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1794 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Moiya @ Mohan Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28915) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28915]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 523/2007

Moiya @ Mohan Lal S/o Devi Lal, R/o Bhinmal District Jalore
(Lodged in Sub-Jail, Bhinmal)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Lalit Bhandari
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Shravan Singh Rathore, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

04/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a

challenge has been made to the order dated 14.05.2007 passed

by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore,

in Criminal Appeal No.20/2007 whereby the learned appellate

court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.02.2007

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bhinmal, District Jalore in Criminal Case No.761/2004 by which

the learned trial court acquitted the accused-petitioner for the

offence under Section 451 of IPC and convicted and sentenced

him as under:-

Offence              Sentence          Fine & default sentence
Sec. 325 IPC         2 years' SI       Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
                                       fine, 07 days' SI
Sec. 323 IPC         6 months' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
                                  fine, 07 days' SI

2. The period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the

original imprisonment.

[2025:RJ-JD:28915] (2 of 4) [CRLR-523/2007]

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.10.2004, the

complainant Devi Lal lodged a written report at the concerned police

station to the effect that the accused-petitioner arrived outside his

residence in a state of intoxication, verbally abused them, pushed his

wife, and when his mother Kanchan Devi came to intervene, the

accused-petitioner fractured her hand. On the basis of said report, the

police registered a case under Sections 323, 325 and 451 of IPC and

commenced the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the

police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner and

other persons for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court framed

charge against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences and

upon denial of guilt, commenced trial. During the course of trial, the

prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited certain

documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations

against him and claimed trial.

4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both

sides, acquitted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 451 of

IPC and convicted and sentenced him for offence under Sections 323,

325 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.02.2007. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional

Session Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore which was dismissed vide

judgment dated 14.05.2007. Both these judgments are under assail

before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Lalit Bhandari, representing the accused-

petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of

guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned courts

below, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in

[2025:RJ-JD:28915] (3 of 4) [CRLR-523/2007]

the year 2004. The accused-petitioner had remained in judicial custody

for about one month. No other case has been reported against him. He

hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the

society. The accused-petitioner has been facing trial since the year 2004

and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view

may be taken in reducing his sentence.

6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made

on behalf of the accused-petitioner but does not refute the fact that the

accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for about one month

and except the present one, no other case has been registered against

him.

7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and

after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this

court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the

accused-petitioner remained in jail for some time. Thus, in the light of

the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC

678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age

of the accused-petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the

case is pending since long time for which the accused-petitioner has

suffered some time incarceration as well as the fact that he faced

financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court

deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of

[2025:RJ-JD:28915] (4 of 4) [CRLR-523/2007]

imprisonment that the accused-petitioner has already undergone till

date.

9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2007 passed

by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore

in Criminal Case No.761/2004 and the judgment dated 14.05.2007

passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhinmal, District

Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No.20/2007 are affirmed but the quantum of

sentence reduced by the learned appellate court is modified to the

extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient

and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount imposed

by the trial court, if not already deposited, is hereby waived. The

petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are

cancelled.

10. The revision petition is allowed in part.

11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 123-mSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter