Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:12460) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12460]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1112/2006
1. Rama S/o Shri Mansa Harijan, R/o Anadara, Tehsil Revdar,
District Sirohi.
2. Dunga Ram S/o Shri Jora Ji,
3. Ranchhor Ram S/o Shri Jora Ji,
4. Oba Ram S/o Shri Jora Ji,
petitioners No.2 to 4 are by caste Devasi, R/o Krishna Ganj,
Tehsil and District Sirohi.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.11/2006 by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld
the judgment dated 27.01.2006, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Revdar, District Sirohi, in Regular Cr. Case
No.171/2002 by which the learned trial court convicted the
petitioners for offence under Section 365 IPC and sentenced them
to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.500/- and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional SI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2002, complainant
Sura submitted a written report at Police Station Anadara to the
effect that the accused-petitioners forcefully abducted his nephew
[2025:RJ-JD:12460] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1112/2006]
(bhanja) and assaulted him. On this report, Police registered a
case and started investigation.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed the
charges against the accused petitioners for offences under
Sections 365/34, 342, 323/34 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined some
witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some documents.
Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 27.01.2006 acquitted the accused-
petitioners from the offences under Sections 342, 323/34 IPC on
the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, however,
convicted and sentenced them for offence under Section 365 IPC.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.2006.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2002 and the sentence
awarded to the petitioners is of one year R.I. and the petitioners
have remained in custody for some time, therefore, it is prayed
that the sentence awarded to petitioners for the offence under
Section 365 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone
by them.
[2025:RJ-JD:12460] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1112/2006]
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners 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 courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioners.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2002 and
the petitioners have remained in custody for some time, out of
total sentence of one year RI, so also suffered the mental agony
and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioners 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
Section 365 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to
the period already undergone.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
365 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine
amount is also waived. The petitioners are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
27-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
