Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2055 (RAJ)

Bhawani Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-07-19

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana in Sessions Case No. 03/2012 may kindly be set aside and quashed and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charges leveled against them." 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2011 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 3/2012 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellants Sections Sentence 1 to 5 148 IPC 06 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.I. 1 to 5 324/149 IPC 01 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further 1 to 5 326/149 IPC 03 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' R.I. 1 307 IPC 03 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' R.I. 2 to 5 307/149 IPC 03 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' R.I. 4. 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 30.10.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Bail) Application No. 171/2015. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the appellant No. 1 Bhawani Singh, who was the main accused has completed his sentence, therefore, counsel is making submission only qua appellant No. 2 to 5. Suspension of Sentence (Bail) Application No. 171/2015. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the appellant No. 1 Bhawani Singh, who was the main accused has completed his sentence, therefore, counsel is making submission only qua appellant No. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW-8 i.e. Shivpal, who is the injured witness has deposed before learned trial court that with common intention he was attacked with 'lathi' and it was Bhawani Singh who caused injury of the axe from the blunt side as well as from the sharp side on his head. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, thereafter, has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the Dr. K.L. Chandeliya (PW-21), who has deposed that the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature, the doctor has also noted that the injuries No. 1 & 2 though said to have been caused by a sharp weapon but could not have been caused by axe. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the Investigating Officer, which reflects a minor delay in filing of the FIR. Learned counsel submits that there was also a compromise happened between the parties thereafter. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants makes a limited prayer that the sentence awarded be stepped down to the sentence already undergone for appellants No. 2 to 5. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the judgment in the matter of Ramesh Kumar alias Babla v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2016 SC 2858 , the relevant para of which reads as follows:- "7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claim that he and others went to the place of occurrence on getting ramification that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (complainant). He brought his brother to police station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. He claim that he and others went to the place of occurrence on getting ramification that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (complainant). He brought his brother to police station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other case. In such circumstances it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant immediately to jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life. 8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. We order accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior." 9. 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. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 11. This Court, taking note of the fact that direct conviction under Section 307 IPC is only upon Bhawani Singh; the sentence undergone; the compromise arrived; the main accused having undergone the sentence awarded; the doctor's statement; the Investigating Officer's statement; the precedent law cited; the statement of the injured; the injury report as well as looking into the overall facts and circumstance, is inclined to allow the appeal to the extent of sentence already undergone. 12. 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..." 13. 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 appellants' conviction under Sections 148, 324/149, 326/149, 307 & 307/149 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. 14. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.