Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2015 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State

2022-07-13

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal be accepted, the convictions and the sentences of the appellants be quashed and they be acquitted of the charges or any other appropriate order which may be considered just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed. " 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 12.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case 131/88 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323/149 & 304-II/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one years' R.I.; sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. & sentenced to undergo four years' R.I. respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is of 06.11.1988, in which, the dispute arose regarding the ownership of a particular agricultural land between the parties and cross cases were registered. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are omnibus and the doctor has categorically opined in his statement that ordinarily the injuries were not sufficient to cause death. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the acquittal of the appellants under Section 447 of the IPC has a long bearing upon the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that Section 447 IPC was charged with in the FIR lodged by the appellants, which was registered as 520/1988 under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 147 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that none of the appellants have any criminal antecedents and it was a sudden altercation, which resulted into the present incident. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that none of the appellants have any criminal antecedents and it was a sudden altercation, which resulted into the present incident. However, after making all these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants makes a limited submission that appellant No. 1 is a 90 years old; appellant No. 2 is a 62 years old; appellant No. 3 is a 79 years old; appellant No. 4 is a 64 years old; appellant No. 5 is a 55 years old and appellant No. 6 is a 75 years of old and looking into the age and long pendency along with all facts mentioned above, the sentence of the accused appellants be reduced with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 20.05.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (SOS) No. 269/1994 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 10. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "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. 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." Haripada Das (Supra) "...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..." 11. On conjoint consideration of the age; the statement of the doctor; the nature of allegations; the cross-cases between the parties; acquittal under Section 447 of IPC; the dispute arising out of an agricultural land and also the lack of specific attributions are conjoint reasons why the prayer of the appellants are allowed. 12. Thus, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 147, 323/149 &304-II/149 of IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.