Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangu Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:25324) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:25324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 595/1996
1. Mangu Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Resident of 16 M.D.,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
2. Mahanga Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Resident of Hisamki,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
3. Labh Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Resident of Hisamki,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
4. Kaur Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, Resident of Hisamki,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
5. Bikar Singh S/o Sh. Balveer Singh, Resident of 2 S.T.R.,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
6. Meeta Singh S/o Sh. Bhag Singh, Resident of 17 M.D.,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
7. Bhag Singh S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh, Resident of 17 M.D.,
Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia assisted by
Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
23/05/2025
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 22.11.1996 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case
No.37/1991 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced
the appellants as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:25324] (2 of 4) [CRLA-595/1996]
S.No. Offence Sentence
1. 447 IPC 3 months' R.I.
2. 148 IPC 1 year's R.I.
3. 324/149 IPC 2 years' R.I.
4. 323/149 IPC 1 year's R.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.1991, complainant
Baldev Singh submitted a report at Police Station Gharsana to the
effect that a property dispute has arrived at between him and
Mangu Singh, with regards to a 25 Bighas of land purchased 6
years ago. Mangu Singh and his brothers and other relatives came
and assaulted the family members of complainant- Baldev Singh
including himself, due to which they sustained severe injuries. On
this report, Police registered a case for offences under Sections
307, 447, 147, 148 & 149 IPC against the accused appellants and
started investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
against the accused-appellants for offences under Sections
307/149, 326, 324, 323, 147, 148, 149 & 447 IPC, who pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 09 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited 43
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.11.1996 convicted and sentenced
[2025:RJ-JD:25324] (3 of 4) [CRLA-595/1996]
the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
7. A letter dated 20.05.2025 has been received from S.H.O,
Police Station Nai-Mandi, Gharsana, District Sriganganagar
informing appellant Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 have passed away and their
death certificate have also been annexed along with the letter
which are hereby taken on record. Hence, the criminal appeal is
dismissed as abated in respect of appellant Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6.
8. So far as appellant Nos.2, 3 & 7 are concerned, learned
counsel for the accused-appellants submits that he does not
challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is
related to the year 1991 and the accused appellant Nos.2, 3 & 7
have so far suffered a sentence of about 21 days, out of total
sentence of two years' R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the
sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may
be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants. The learned AAG submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the
said case.
10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellants.
11. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1991 and
the appellants have so far undergone remained in judicial custody
for some time, out of total sentence of two years' R.I., and have
[2025:RJ-JD:25324] (4 of 4) [CRLA-595/1996]
also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellants have remained behind the bars for a considerable time,
it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offences under Sections 447, 148, 324/149 & 323/149 IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the conviction of appellant Nos.2, 3 & 7 for offences under
Sections 447, 148, 324/149 & 323/149 IPC, the sentence awarded
to them for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone. The appellants are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of.
14. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
75-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
