Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Billor Singh @ Balveer Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16062) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16062]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 656/2005
1. Billor Singh @ Balveer Singh S/o Nidhan Singh, R/o
Fathegarh Bas Godara, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
2. Pappu Singh @ Baltej Singh @ Baljeet Singh S/o Billor Singh,
R/o Fathegarh Bas Godara, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
3. Gurmeet Singh @ Mittu Singh S/o Billor Singh R/o Fathegarh
Bas Godara, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
4. Chindo @ Gurdev Kaur W/o Billor Singh R/o Fathegarh Bas
Godara, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
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 27.07.2005 passed
by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.05/2005 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 14.09.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.33/1987 by which
the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners
No.1 Billor Singh & No.2 Pappu Singh as under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:16062] (2 of 5) [CRLR-656/2005]
Offence Sentence Fine & Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326 IPC 4 years' RI Rs.100/-
Section 324 IPC 1 year's SI -
Section 323/34 IPC 1 year's SI -
The petitioner No.3 - Gurmeet Singh @ Mittu Singh was
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326/34 IPC 4 years' RI Rs.100/-
Section 324 IPC 1 year's SI -
Section 323/34 IPC 1 year's SI -
The petitioner No.4 - Chindo @ Gurdev Kaur was convicted
and sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326/34 IPC 4 years' RI Rs.100/-
Section 324/34 IPC 1 year's SI -
Section 323 IPC 1 year's SI -
In default of payment of fine, each petitioner shall undergo
further one month S.I. and all the petitioners shall pay Rs.3,000/-
as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as prosecution expenses.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant Pritam
Singh lodged an FIR inter alia alleging that on 17.10.1986 at
about 5 AM he along with his brothers were at his field and they
saw the present petitioners digging a water channel in Killa
No.022. When complainant objected, Billor Singh refused and all
the accused persons attacked the complainant and his brothers
[2025:RJ-JD:16062] (3 of 5) [CRLR-656/2005]
with axes. 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.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 326/34, 324/34 & 323/34
of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the
trial. During the course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were
examined and various 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 evidence, learned Trial Judge has
convicted & sentenced the accused for aforementioned offences
vide judgment dated 14.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, they preferred an appeal before learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 27.07.2005. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma, representing the
petitioners, 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 1986. The petitioners had remained in jail for about 40 days
after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other
case has been reported against them. They hail from a very poor
family and belong to the weaker section of the society. They are
facing trial since the year 1986 and they have languished in jail for
[2025:RJ-JD:16062] (4 of 5) [CRLR-656/2005]
some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing
their sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that
the petitioners have remained behind the bars for about 40 days
and except the present one no other case has been registered
against them.
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
petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the
rigor for last 39 years. 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 petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that
the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioners have suffered incarceration for some days and the
maximum sentence imposed upon them is of four 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 petitioners have
already undergone till date.
[2025:RJ-JD:16062] (5 of 5) [CRLR-656/2005]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2005
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.05/2005 and the
judgment dated 14.09.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.33/1987 is affirmed
but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is
modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till
date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of
justice. The fine amount is hereby maintained. The fine amount
imposed by trial Court, if not already deposited, then two months'
time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one
month's S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to
surrender. Their 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
12-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
