Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gokla And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:12763) on 6 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12763]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 886/2006
1. Gokla S/o Dana Ji, By Caste Gameti Bheel, Resident of
Ghanchiyanadi Bhula, Police Station Rohida, Tehsil
Pindwara, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
2. Raiya @ Rewaram S/o Samira, By Caste Gameti Bheel,
Resident of Ghanchiyanadi Bhula, Police Station Rohida,
Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/03/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report in which it has
been mentioned that petitioner No.1-Gokla S/o Dana Ji expired.
The said report is hereby taken on record.
2. Hence, the criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner
No.1-Gokla S/o Dana Ji is dismissed as abated.
3. So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, by way of filing the
instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to
the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Aburoad, District Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005
whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:28:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12763] (2 of 6) [CRLR-886/2006]
against the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2005 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pindwara, District Sirohi in
Criminal Regular Case No.193/2001 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence
Section 332 IPC Two years' SI
Section 353 IPC One years' SI
4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 08.04.2001,
complainant - Hem Singh submitted a written report to the effect
that he along with Constable Bhanwar Singh went to arrest Gokla
at his house, they found the accused-petitioner, but he resisted to
surrender. Accused-petitioner Gokla ran inside the house and
brought a lathi and arrow from inside and inflicted injury to
complainant as well as on Constable, meanwhile petitioner No.2
came with stick and assaulted them. Upon the aforesaid
information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation,
charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the
Court concerned.
6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 332 & 353 of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and some
documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought
from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which
he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel
for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:28:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12763] (3 of 6) [CRLR-886/2006]
evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 332 & 353 of IPC vide judgment dated
21.07.2005 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 05.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
7. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Rathore, representing the petitioner
No.2, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of
guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same
time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2001.
The petitioner No.2 remained in jail for about one month and
fifteen (15) days after passing of the judgment by the appellate
court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from
a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the
society. He is facing trial since the year 2001 and he has
languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be
taken in reducing his sentence.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General though opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute
the fact that the petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for
more than one month and except the present one no other case
has been registered against them.
9. 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,
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:28:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12763] (4 of 6) [CRLR-886/2006]
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioner No.2 remained in jail for some time and he is facing the
rigor for last 24 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das
Vs
.
Stat
e
of
W
e
s
t
Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister
An
t
h
o
ny Pareira
vs
.
Stat
e
of
Ma
h
[2025:RJ-JD:12763] (5 of 6) [CRLR-886/2006]
arashtra reported in
01 and considering the circumstances of the case,
age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the
case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner
No.2 has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum
sentence imposed upon petitioner No.2 is of two years as well as
the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through
mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner No.2 has
already undergone till date.
11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
05.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aburoad, District Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005 and the
judgment dated 21.07.2005 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Regular
Case No.193/2001 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence
awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that
the sentence petitioner No.2 has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The
petitioner No.2 is on bail. He need not to surrender. his bail bonds
are cancelled.
12. The revision petition is allowed in part.
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
181-GKaviya/-
[2025:RJ-JD:12763] (6 of 6) [CRLR-886/2006]
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
