Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhom Singh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22004) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22004]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 792/2007
1. Bhom Singh S/o Dungar Singh R/o Kalab Khurd, P.S. Raipur,
District Pali.
2. Devi Singh S/o Hazari Singh R/o Kalab Khurd, P.S. Raipur,
District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 01.08.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali HQ,
Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Appeal No.04/2004 whereby the
learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2004 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali in
Criminal Original Case No.39/1992 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 326/34 IPC 3 years' RI Rs.2,000/- 6 months' SI
Section 324/34 IPC 1 year's RI Rs.1,000/- 3 months' SI
[2025:RJ-JD:22004] (2 of 5) [CRLR-792/2007]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.06.1989,
complainant - Dausingh submitted a written report Police Station,
Raipur to the extent that today at about 10 AM when his father
along with some other persons went to their field for doing
agricultural work, the present petitioners along with some other
accused persons started assaulting & beating his father with
deadly weapons due to which complainant's father fainted and fell
down. 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.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 307, 326/149, 324, 323,
147 & 148 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 15
witnesses were examined and some 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, 3 witnesses were examined and some
documents were exhibited. After hearing the learned counsel for
the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 147, 148, 326 & 324 of IPC vide judgment
dated 17.02.2004 and sentenced them as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal
before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali
[2025:RJ-JD:22004] (3 of 5) [CRLR-792/2007]
HQ, Jaitaran, District Pali, which was partly allowed vide judgment
dated 01.08.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha, 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 1989. They had remained in jail for about 1 month & 22 days
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 1989 and they have languished in jail for
some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing
their 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 1 month
& 22 days and except the present one no other case has been
registered against them.
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 and they are facing the
rigor for last 36 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed
[2025:RJ-JD:22004] (4 of 5) [CRLR-792/2007]
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.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
01.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No.1, Pali HQ, Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Appeal
No.04/2004 and the judgment dated 17.02.2004 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali
in Criminal Original Case No.39/1992 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 one month's S.I.
The petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail
bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
[2025:RJ-JD:22004] (5 of 5) [CRLR-792/2007]
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
22-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
