Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhirajmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24953) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24953]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 623/2025
Dhirajmal S/o Kamji Khant, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Navaghara, Police Station Arthuna, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
(Petitioner In Lodged In Dist. Jail Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp High Court Of Rajasthan Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
23.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.83/2020 by which the appellate court partly
allowed the appeal of the petitioner and while maintaining the
petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 326 IPC as passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhi, District Banswara in Cr.
Case No.408/2016 vide judgment dated 05.09.2020, acquitted
him from offence under Section 447 IPC. For offence under
Section 326 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo three
years SI along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo three months SI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2016, the
complainant Kantilal submitted a written report to SHO, PS
[2025:RJ-JD:24953] (2 of 4) [CRLR-623/2025]
Arthuna to the effect that the accused-petitioner assaulted his son
Sandeep with knife. On the said report, FIR was registered against
the accused petitioner and investigation commenced.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges against the accused petitioner for offences under Sections
447, 326 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 12 witnesses and exhibited certain documents in support of its
case. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.09.2020 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 326 IPC.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 23.04.2025
and the appellate court while maintaining the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 336 IPC,
acquitted him from offences under Section 447 IPC. Hence, this
revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2016 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of more than nine months, out of total
sentence of three years SI. In such circumstances, it is prayed
that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:24953] (3 of 4) [CRLR-623/2025]
for the offence under Section 326 IPC may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioner 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-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2016 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of more than nine months incarceration, out of total
sentence of three years S.I., and so also suffered the mental
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has
remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by
the appellate court for offence under Section 326 IPC is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Section 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount is hereby maintained. However, the default sentence
is hereby reduced from three months SI to one month SI.
[2025:RJ-JD:24953] (4 of 4) [CRLR-623/2025]
The petitioner is in jail. On deposition of the fine amount, the
petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any
other. Otherwise, the appellant shall serve the reduced default
sentence.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
99-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
