Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jetha Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:42984) on 24 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:42984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 360/2008
Jetha Ram S/o Kalaji, B/c Garasia, Aged 49 years, R/o Aamali,
Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
24/09/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
09.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge Abu Road,
Sirohi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal
Appeal No.9/2006 by which the appellate court dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated
25.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pindwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal
Original Case No.34/2003, whereby, the learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 326 IPC 3 Years' S.I. Rs.200/- and in default he shall
further undergo one month's
S.I.
Sec. 323 IPC 6 Months' S.I. ----
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42984] (2 of 4) [CRLR-360/2008]
Brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2002, complainant
Bhanwar Lal gave a written report at concerned Police Station to
the effect that on 08.12.2002 he went to his maternal home in
village Kaldari at about 3:30 P.M. where his mother Smt. Dakhu
was lying injured. When he inquired about the incident, he came
to know that his father Jetharam gave beatings to his mother. On
this report, the police registered the case against accused-
petitioner for offence under Sections 323 & 326 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the
charges and claimed for trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 07
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, some documents were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.04.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.04.2008. Hence,
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42984] (3 of 4) [CRLR-360/2008]
occurrence relates back to year 2002 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about five months, out of total sentence of
3 years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections 323 & 326 IPC may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner. The learned PP 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.
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.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2002 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of about five months' incarceration, out of total sentence of
three year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and
trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has
remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Sections 323 & 326 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42984] (4 of 4) [CRLR-360/2008]
offence under Sections 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to
him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone, however, the amount of fine is hereby waived, if not
deposited. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
3-Ishan/-
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:56:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
