Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hurma And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22002) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 919/2007
1. Hurma S/o Soma Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
2. Kanji S/o Soma Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
3. Dhanji S/o Soma Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
4. Kanti S/o Nana Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
5. Ramji S/o Nana Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
6. Amra S/o Nana Meena R/o Balwada Fala Ogaaniya, P.S.
Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/05/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner No.6 -
Amra passed away and submitted his death certificate which is
hereby taken on record.
2. In these circumstances, the present criminal revision petition
in respect of petitioner No.6 - Amra is dismissed as abated.
3. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 21.08.2007 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.04/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
[2025:RJ-JD:22002] (2 of 5) [CRLR-919/2007]
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2001
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in
Regular Criminal Case No.79/1997 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner No.1 - Hurma as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default
of fine
Section 326 IPC 3 years' RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 324 IPC 2 years' RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 323 IPC 1 year's RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 148 IPC 1 year's RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
The petitioners No.2 to 5 were convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326/149 IPC 3 years' RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 324/149 IPC 2 years' RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 323/149 IPC 1 year's RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
Section 148 IPC 1 year's RI Rs.500/- 1 month's SI
4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 20.04.1997
complainant Manilal submitted a written report at Police Station
Kotwali, Dungarpur inter alia alleging that on 24.03.1997 at about
5 PM when he was going towards his house, the accused persons
abused the complainant and assaulted him with deadly weapons
due to which he got seriously injured. Upon the aforesaid
information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation,
charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the
Court concerned.
[2025:RJ-JD:22002] (3 of 5) [CRLR-919/2007]
6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 323 & 326
of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the
trial. During the course of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were
examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same. In defence, one
witness was examined and various documents were exhibited.
After hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has
convicted & sentenced the accused for aforementioned offences
vide judgment dated 15.12.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, they preferred an appeal before learned Sessions
Judge, Dungarpur which was dismissed vide judgment dated
21.08.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh, 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 trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 1997. The petitioner No.1 had remained in jail for about 2
months and petitioners No.2 to 5 remained in jail for about 1
month after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No
other case has been reported against them. They hail from a very
poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society. They
are facing trial since the year 1997 and they have languished in
[2025:RJ-JD:22002] (4 of 5) [CRLR-919/2007]
jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in
reducing their sentence.
8. 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 some time and
except the present one no other case has been registered against
them.
9. 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.
10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the
rigor for last 28 years. 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 a pretty long time for which the
petitioners have suffered incarceration for some days and the
maximum sentence imposed upon them is of three years as well
as the fact that they 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:22002] (5 of 5) [CRLR-919/2007]
11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2007
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.04/2002 and the judgment dated 15.12.2001 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal
Case No.79/1997 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence
awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that
the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and
justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount is
hereby maintained. The fine amount imposed by trial Court, if not
already deposited, then two months' time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioners shall undergo two months' S.I. The petitioners are
on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are
cancelled.
12. The revision petition is allowed in part.
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
