Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Girdhari Singh vs State Of Raj. (2025:Rj-Jd:15987) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:15987]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 158/2005
Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Jog Singh, R/o Bagni Nagar, Tehsil Sojat,
District Pali
[Lodged in Sub-Jail, Sojat]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
26/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 25.02.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Sojat, District Pali, in Criminal Appeal
No.26/1998 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the
appeal vide judgment dated 04.08.1998 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City, District
Pali in Criminal Case No.153/1984 by which the learned appellate court
modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 325 IPC 1 month SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
fine, 10 days' SI
Sec. 323 IPC 1 month SI Rs.100/-
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.02.1984,
complainant Bhawani Singh gave an oral report at Police Station Bagri
Nagar against the present petitioner Girdhari Singh and other
individuals that they assaulted him and his family members with lathis.
[2025:RJ-JD:15987] (2 of 4) [CRLR-158/2005]
The petitioners and the other accused persons were arrested and
recovery has been made pursuant to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. On the basis of said report, the police registered a case under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 326, 325 and 323 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 them under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326/149 of IPC and
upon denial of guilt, commenced trial. During the course of trial, the
prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and submitted 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. In defence, two witnesses were
examined.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for Sections 147,
148, 452, 326/149, 325/149 and 323 of IPC vide judgment dated
04.08.1998. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment dated
04.08.1998 before learned appellate court, whereby the appellate court
acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452
and 326/149 and of IPC, while maintaining the conviction for the
offence under Sections 325 and 323 reduced the sentence vide
judgment dated 25.02.2005.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, representing the 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 the year
[2025:RJ-JD:15987] (3 of 4) [CRLR-158/2005]
1984. The accused-petitioner had remained in judicial custody for about
12 days. 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 was aged about 23 years in 1984 at the time of
incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about 65 years at present
and has been facing trial since the year 1984 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 petitioner but does not refute the fact that the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 12 days 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 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
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is six
months 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
[2025:RJ-JD:15987] (4 of 4) [CRLR-158/2005]
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.1998 passed
by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sojat City, District Pali in Criminal Case No.153/1984 and the judgment
dated 25.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,
Sojat, District Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.26/1998 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 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
7-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
