Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2335 (RAJ)

Shivlal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-31

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that appeal so filed by the accused-appellant may kindly be allowed and accused appellant be acquitted for the offence with which he has been charged, with and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case that he accused appellant is in jail since 17/11/94, he be released on the sentence already undergone, or looking to the facts& circumstances of the case probation be given under the Probation of Offenders Act"" 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present Criminal Appeal has been pending since the year 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 14/1995, whereby the learned Court convicted the appellant, under Sections 307, 324 and 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959 for which he was awarded multiple sentences, all of which were to run concurrently and he was sentenced to 6 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 6 months imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 03.07.1996 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 199/1996. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone about 20 months in custody out of the total sentence so awarded to him by the learned Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident in question, allegedly occurred when the appellant was hunting deer, and inadvertently fired at, and injured, Ramniwas; who was cutting pala in his field with other persons. And that, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question, to corroborate the version of the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakhvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 and a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Labuda v. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 356/1994, decided by this Hon'ble Court on 16.01.1996). 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakhvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 and a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Labuda v. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 356/1994, decided by this Hon'ble Court on 16.01.1996). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor however, opposed the appeal. 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. 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. This Court observes that, the appellant has undergone about 20 months in custody, as revealed from the impugned order, which shows that he was taken into custody immediately on the day of the incident in question, and was in custody during trial until his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail, in pursuance of the order dated 03.07.1996 passed by this Hon'ble Court, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 199/1996, whereby the sentenced awarded to him was suspended. 12. Bail Petition No. 199/1996, whereby the sentenced awarded to him was suspended. 12. Owing to the afflux of time, and the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Labuda (supra), and in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 307, 324 and 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959 as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail, as discussed hereinabove, and he therefore, need not surrender. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.