Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Niwas And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23405) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23405]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 674/2007
1. Ram Niwas S/o Ganga Ram, aged about 35 years
2. Rameshwar S/o Ganga Ram, aged about 25 years
R/o Kalyanpura [Khamor], P.S. Phulliya Kalla, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Bhilwara [Lodged At District Jail, Bhilwara] ----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
14/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge No.2, District Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura, in
Criminal Appeal No.85/2005 whereby the learned appellate court
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment
dated 12.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case
No.399/1999 by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Default Sentence
448/34 IPC 03 months' SI Rs.100/- 15 days SI
341/34 IPC 01 month SI Rs.100/- 15 days SI
323/34 IPC 03 months' SI Rs.100 15 days SI
354/34 IPC 02 years' SI Rs.200/- 15 days SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.09.1999, the
complainant Shanker Lal Baori lodged a written report at the concerned
Police Station alleging that on the previous night at around 09:00 PM,
while he was at his field and his wife was alone at home, the accused-
[2025:RJ-JD:23405] (2 of 4) [CRLR-674/2007]
petitioners unlawfully entered his house, thereby committing house
trespass and assaulted his wife with intent to outrage her modesty and
extended death threats while pinning her down and holding a sharp
edged weapon (knife) on her neck. On the basis of said report, the
police registered a case and commenced the investigation. After
completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet
against the accused-petitioners. The learned trial court framed charge
against them under Sections 448/34, 354/34, 341/34 and 323/34 of
IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10
witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of their case.
The accused-petitioners were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for Sections
448/34, 354/34, 341/34 and 323/34 of IPC vide judgment dated
12.10.2001. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
accused-petitioners preferred an appeal against the conviction and
sentence before learned Additional Session Judge No.2, District
Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura, whereby the appellate court dismissed the
appeal vide judgment dated 09.07.2007.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, 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
courts below, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took
place in the year 1999. The accused-petitioners had remained in judicial
custody for about 42 days. No other case has been reported against
him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section
of the society. The accused-petitioners were aged about 33 years and
[2025:RJ-JD:23405] (3 of 4) [CRLR-674/2007]
23 years respectively in 1999 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioners are aged about 59 years and 49 years respectively at
present and has been facing trial since the year 1999 and he has
languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken
in reducing his 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 42 days and except
the present one, no other case has been registered against him.
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. 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 long time for which the petitioners have suffered some
time incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is two
years as well as the fact that he 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:23405] (4 of 4) [CRLR-674/2007]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2001 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No.399/1999 and the judgment dated
09.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.2,
District Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura, in Criminal Appeal No.85/2005 are
affirmed but the quantum of sentence reduced by the learned appellate
court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till
date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice.
The fine amount imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The
amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by
the petitioners, then two months' time is granted to the petitioners to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of
fine, the petitioners shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
The petitioners are on bail. They need not 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
27-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
