Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1511 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-08

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar vide judgement dated 23.09.1998 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.172/1991 in the following manner :- Offence for which convicted Sentence, fine and default sentence Section 341 of the IPC One month's rigorous imprisonment Section 323 of the IPC Three months' rigorous imprisonment Section 325 of the IPC Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment They preferred an appeal giving challenge to the aforesaid judgement, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide judgement dated 03.12.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.104/2000, whereby while maintaining the conviction for the above offences, the sentence for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1, 500/-. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid two judgements, the petitioners have preferred the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 17.06.1991, complainant Jetha Ram submitted an oral information at the Police Station Mahajan to the effect that he had gone to Mahaveer for getting repaired his cot and while he was returning, Madan, Surja Ram etc. came armed with lathis and accosted him. Madan gave him lathi blow on head and assaulted with kicks and fists. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.47/1991 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners for the offences under Section 341, 323 and 325 of the IPC. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the IPC vide judgement dated 23.09.1998. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgement, they preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 03.12.2001, whereby while affirming the judgement of conviction passed by the trial court, the sentence for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC was reduced. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1991. The petitioners were around 30-32 years of age at that time and at present they are 62-64 years old and are poor farmers. They were not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned judgement. The petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted trial of 32 years. They have remained in custody for 10 days after passing of the judgement in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioners and they had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that they have remained behind the bars for 10 days. 6. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioners and they had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that they have remained behind the bars for 10 days. 6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgement of conviction. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction is maintained. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case is of the year 1991. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 32 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. They were 30-32 years of age at the time of the incident and now they are around 62-64 years of age. It was the first criminal case registered against them. They have not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. They remained incarcerated for a period of 10 days after judgement in appeal. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioners deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioners, their criminal antecedents, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 8. 8. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction dated 23.09.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar in Criminal Regular Case No.172/1991 as well as the judgement in appeal dated 03.12.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal appeal No.104/2000 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 341, 323 and 325 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioners have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.