Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Kumar @ Malik vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23393) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23393]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 659/2006
Rajesh Kumar @ Malik S/o Ganga Ram, Resident of 6.
Panchavati, Police Station - Hathi Pole, District Udaipur.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 25.07.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.65/2005 (115/05) by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Udaipur, by which the appellate court dismissed the
petitioners' appeal and upheld the judgment dated
03.08.2005 passed in Regular Cr. Case No.551/2003 by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.2 (South), Udaipur
by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Sec. 452 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Sec. 323 IPC 3 months' S.I. ---- ----
Sec. 325 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:23393] (2 of 4) [CRLR-659/2006]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.08.2003, the
complainant Mahipal, submitted a written report at Police
Station Bhupalpura, Udaipur to the effect that while he was
sitting inside his shop, the accused-petitioner along with co-
accused, standing outside, began abusing him and making
obscene gestures. When the complainant objected to their
conduct and questioned their behavior, the accused-persons
assaulted him with a lathi as a result of which, he started
bleeding from his eye. On the said report, an FIR was
registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came
to be submitted against the present-petitioner in the Court
concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
petitioner for offence under Section 452, 323 & 325/34 of
IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 8 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited
various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-
petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.08.2005 convicted and
sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
12.07.2006. Hence, this revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:23393] (3 of 4) [CRLR-659/2006]
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner submits that they do not challenge the finding of
conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year
2003 and out of total sentence of one year's S.I., the accused
petitioner has already served about 16 days of imprisonment,
therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner and 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.
9. 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.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003
and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 16
days in custody out of one year's 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 has remained behind the bars for some time, it will
be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Sections 452, 323 & 325 of IPC is reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
[2025:RJ-JD:23393] (4 of 4) [CRLR-659/2006]
Sections 452, 323 & 325 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him
for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone. The fine amount 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 fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I.
The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of the trial Court as well as the appellate
court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
19-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
