Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukh Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:43003) on 24 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:43003]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 446/2008
Prithvi Ram S/o Shri Mani Ram, B/c Jat, aged about 50 years, R/
o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla), Tehsil & District Srigangangar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 437/2008
Mukh Ram S/o Shri Sriram Chandra, by caste Jat, Aged about 45
years, R/o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla) Tehsil & District
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 441/2008
Shishpal S/o Shri Kalu Ram, By caste Jat, Aged about 38 years,
R/o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla) Tehsil & District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 442/2008
Jeet Ram S/o Shri Sheokaran, by caste Jat, Aged about 39
years, R/o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla) Tehsil & District
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 444/2008
Kashi Ram S/o Shri Mani Ram, by caste Jat, Aged about 43
years, R/o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla) Tehsil & District
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:57:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/09/2025 at 09:58:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43003] (2 of 5) [CRLR-446/2008]
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 445/2008
Mani Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, by caste Jat, aged about 75 years,
R/o 5-G Chhoti (Saharanwalla) Tehsil & District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur for
Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
24/09/2025
Instant revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. have
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
30.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.2,
Sriganganagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal Nos.18/2005, 19/2005, 20/2005 & 21/2005 by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment dated 12.08.2005 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred
to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.215/1999, whereby, the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners
as under :-
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:57:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43003] (3 of 5) [CRLR-446/2008]
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 452 IPC 3 Years' S.I. Fine of Rs.200/- and in default
of payment of fine, they shall
further undergo one month's
S.I.
Sec. 148 IPC 1 Year's S.I. ----
Sec. 323 or 6 Months' S.I. ----
323/149 IPC
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 26.05.1997, complainant
Jailal gave a Parcha Bayan at concerned Police Station to the
effect that in the mid-night while he was asleep, accused
Daulatram, Bhadarram, Kashiram, Prithviram, Shishpal, Mukhram,
Maniram and Jeetram came to his house and pelted the stones at
his house and also gave beating to him. Thereafter his brother
came to rescue him then all the accused persons fled away. On
this report, the police registered the case against accused-
petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 452 and 323/149 IPC
and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the
case were framed against the accused-petitioners, who denied the
charges and claimed for trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were also examined and
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:57:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43003] (4 of 5) [CRLR-446/2008]
some documents were also exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 12.08.2005 by a common order
convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as
mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred aforesaid appeals before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.04.2008.
Hence, these revision petitions.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 1997 and the petitioners have so
far suffered a sentence of some days, out of total sentence of 3
years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive
sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under
Sections 452, 148 & 323 or 323/149 IPC may be reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioners 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-petitioners.
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:57:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43003] (5 of 5) [CRLR-446/2008]
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1997 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone
some days' 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-petitioners have 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 452, 148 &
323 or 323/149 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petitions are partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 452, 148 & 323 or 323/149 IPC, the
sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offences are hereby
reduced to the period already undergone, however, the amount of
fine is hereby waived, if not deposited. The petitioners are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
4-9 Ishan/-
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:57:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
