Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganpat Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16356) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16356]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1109/2003
1. Ganpat Singh S/o Ragunath Singh, By Caste Rajput.
2. Lal Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, By Caste Rajput.
3. Amar Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, By Caste Rajput.
4. Mohan Singh, S/o Ganpat Singh, By Caste Rajput.
All are residents of Liliya, Police Station Merta City, District
- Nagaur.
(Lodged in Sub-Jail Merta City)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the judgment dated 24.11.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.20/2002 (02/2002) by learned Special Judge, Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, by which the appellate court
dismissed the petitioners' appeal and upheld the judgment dated
10.01.2002 passed in Regular Cr. Case No.05/2000 by learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, by which the learned trial
court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Sec.147 IPC 6 months' R.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Sec.341 IPC 15 days' S.I. Rs.100/- 3 days' S.I.
Sec.323 IPC 3 months' R.I. Rs.250/- 7 days' S.I.
Sec.325/149 IPC 2 years' R.I. Rs.1000/- 1 month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:16356] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1109/2003]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.1999, the
complainant Mahaveer Singh Submitted a written report at Police
Station Merta City, to the effect that the accused-petitioners
assaulted him and one Gajje Singh with lathis. On the said report,
an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet
came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court
concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
petitioners for offence under Section 147, 341, 323 & 325/149
IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, three
witnesses were examined and exhibited some documents.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.01.2002 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
6. 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 24.11.2003.
Hence, this revision petition.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted a report
dated 10.03.2025 received from the Police Station Merta City,
District Nagaur informing that the Petitioner No.1 Ganpat Singh
has expired on 02.03.2014. His death certificate is also annexed
with the report. The said report is hereby taken on record.
[2025:RJ-JD:16356] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1109/2003]
8. Since the petitioner No.1 has expired, therefore, the present
criminal revision petition qua petitioner No.1 Ganpat Singh is
hereby dismissed as abated.
9. So far as the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, at the
threshold, learned counsel submits that he does not challenge the
finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year
1999 and out of total sentence of 2 years' R.I., the accused
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have already served about twelve days of
imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to
the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the aforesaid offence may be reduced
to the period already undergone by them.
10. On the other hand, learned AAG 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.
11. 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.
12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1999 and
the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have so far undergone a period of about
twelve days in custody out of two years of total sentence, so also
suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to
the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 to
4 have remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and
proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court and upheld by
the appellate court for offence under Sections 147, 341, 323 &
[2025:RJ-JD:16356] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1109/2003]
325/149 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the
petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for offence
under Sections 147, 341, 323 & 325/149 of IPC, the sentence
awarded to them for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court
is hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall undergo the default sentence
awarded by the trial court. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
14. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
230-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
