Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narenda Kumar And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:40623) on 10 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:40623]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 195/2007
1. Narenda Kumar S/o Parsu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Siyana.
2. Smt. Shanti W/o Parsu Ram, R/o Siyana, Tehsil and District
Jalore.
(Lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Pratishtha Dave
Dr. Rakesh Sinha
Ms. Geeta Shreemali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/09/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report dated
10.07.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the appellants are alive.
The same be taken on record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated
13.03.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, (Fast Track), Jalore (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial
court') in Sessions Case No.54/2006(35/2006), whereby the
accused appellants were convicted and sentenced as below :-
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
498-A of IPC 3 Years' Rigorous ₹1000/- 3 Months' Rigorous
Imprisonment Imprisonment
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 01:22:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40623] (2 of 4) [CRLA-195/2007]
3. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for
disposal of the case are that on 11.06.2006 at 10:30 AM, a
written report submitted by complainant - Mohan Lal alleging
therein that on that day in the morning around 08:30 AM, he
received information by phone that his sister had been burnt.
Upon receiving this information, he went to his sister's in-laws'
house and found her burnt and dead. His sister had been married
to appellant No.1 four years ago. After marriage, both the
appellants used to harass his sister for money, and they killed her
because the money was not given to them.
3.1. On the said statement, the FIR No.83/2006 was registered at
Police Station Bagra, District Jalore and after conducting thorough
investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants
for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
3.2. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon completion of the
trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 13.03.2007
convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC and acquitted them for the offence under Section 304-B of
IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the appellants were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2007
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.424/2007.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
the appellants has undergone detention for some period and the
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 01:22:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40623] (3 of 4) [CRLA-195/2007]
case is pending against him since 2007. Learned counsel for the
appellants has also submitted that the appellants are facing agony
of a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present appellants may be substituted with the period of
sentences already undergone by them.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants. However, he was
not in a position to dispute the fact that the present appeal is
pending since 2007.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2001 and the present
appeal is pending adjudication since 2008.
7.1. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :-
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
"84. ... ... ... There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 01:22:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40623] (4 of 4) [CRLA-195/2007]
Haripada Das (supra) :
"4. ... ... ... considering the fact that the respondent had
already undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both
financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the
fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-
1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts
of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone..."
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
appellants, the present appeal is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellants, the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
8. All pending applications are disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.12
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 01:22:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
