Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pritam Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26430) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 671/2005
1. Preetam Singh, Aged about 65 years.
2. Balveer Singh, Aged about 45 years.
3. Darshan Singh, Aged about 42 years.
4. Babu Singh, Aged about 40 years.
All sons of Shri Gurdayal Singh, Resident of Fatehgarh,
Tehsil & District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
(Lodged in District Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nagraj Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
Dr. RDSS Kharlia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/05/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against
the judgment dated 27.07.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal No.02/2005 by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track,
Hanumangarh, by which the appellate court dismissed the petitioners'
appeal and upheld the judgment dated 15.09.2001 passed in Regular
Cr. Case No.389/1990 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hanumangarh by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced
the petitioners as under:-
Accused-petitioner No.1 - Preetam Singh
Offence Sentence
Sec.324 IPC 9 months' S.I.
Sec.323 IPC 6 months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:26430] (2 of 4) [CRLR-671/2005]
Accused-petitioner No.2- Balveer Singh
Offence Sentence
Sec.323 IPC 6 months' S.I.
Accused-petitioner No.3- Darshan Singh
Offence Sentence
Sec.323 IPC 6 months' S.I.
Accused-petitioner No.4- Babu Singh
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Sec.325 IPC 1 years' S.I. Rs.100/- 15 days' S.I.
Sec.323 IPC 6 months' S.I. ---- ----
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1986, the complainant
Billor Singh, submitted a written report at Police Station Hanumangarh
to the effect he along with his family and friends having tea at his farm,
where accused-petitioners came and assaulted them with gandasee, as
a result of which, they sustained injuries. On the said report, an FIR
was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against the present-petitioners in the Court concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
petitioners for offence under Section 147, 447, 325/149, 324/149 & 323
of IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various documents.
Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioners under section 313
Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, one witness was examined.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned
judgment dated 15.09.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-
petitioners for aforesaid offence.
[2025:RJ-JD:26430] (3 of 4) [CRLR-671/2005]
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 27.07.2005. Hence, this revision
petition.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the accused-
petitioner No.1- Preetam Singh has expired on 01.07.2020. A copy of
his death certificate is also available on record.
8. In view of above, the present criminal revision petition qua
petitioner No.1 is hereby dismissed as abated.
9. So far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, at the threshold,
learned counsel submits that he do not challenge the finding of
conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1986 and out
of total sentence of one year's S.I., the accused petitioner Nos.2 to 4
have already served some time of imprisonment. Moreover, compromise
has also been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, it is prayed
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the aforesaid
offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of
compromise arrived at between the parties. Compromise deed is
already available on record. However, learned Public Prosecutor 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:26430] (4 of 4) [CRLR-671/2005]
12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1986 and the
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have remained in custody for some time, out of
one year 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 and compromise has arrived at between the parties, it will be just
and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for the aforesaid
offences 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 petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the
aforementioned offences, the sentence awarded to them for the
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is hereby waived. The
petitioners 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
16-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
