Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1531 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-14

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.03.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.16/1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence for which convicted Sentence, Fine and Default Sentence Section 447 IPC A fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month's simple imprisonment Section 379 IPC 6 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month's simple imprisonment Section 3(1)(4) of the SC/ST Act 6 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 2 months' simple imprisonment Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act 6 months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 2 months' simple imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 28.09.1994 at 07.15 p.m., complainant Baksaram Meghwal, resident of Kharda submitted a typed report at the Police Station Jhanwar to the effect that he and his brother Mishraram were having an agriculture field jointly in Khasra No.80 of Village Kharda, in which there was millet crop ready to be harvested. In the intervening night of 27.09.1994-28.09.1994, accused Devi Singh, Dungar Singh, Kan Singh, Chain Singh, Ummed Singh, Kishor Singh, Jabar Singh, Jai Singh, Khushal Singh, Jal Singh, Khinv Singh, Hameer Singh and Hukma Ram came to his field with the tractor of Hukma Ram. They cut the corp, loaded the same in the tractor and concealed it somewhere. At that time, the complainant had gone to Katarda and had asked Gokalram, Chhoturam, Munnaram and Pukhram to look after the field. Everything was alright at night, but when they reached the field in the morning, the accused persons were loading the millet crop in the tractor. When they were refrained to do so, they pushed Gokalram and hurled caste related abuses towards the persons of the complainant party. They also threatened them, due to which, they ran away from the field. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.130/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellants. They also threatened them, due to which, they ran away from the field. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.130/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellants. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Section 447, 379 IPC and section 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 09.03.1995, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident pertains to the year 1994. Many of the appellants are now aged more than 60 years. They have faced the rigour of criminal case for good 29 years and have languished in jail for around 3 days during trial. They are living peacefully and are abiding by the undertaking given at the time of release on bail in this appeal. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this stage. He, therefore, prays the sentences awarded to the appellants 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 the appellants have remained behind the bars for some time and that the case is pending since long. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. 7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1994. A long period has already gone by since then. Out of the 13 appellants, 8 are now above 60 years of age. One of them is even 89 years old. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 29 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. They have remained incarcerated for some time during trial. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellants are living peacefully since last 29 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that they have been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon them. 9. In view of the discussion made here in above, the case of the appellants deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellants 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 appellants, 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 sentences imposed upon them for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by them. 10. 10. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.16/1995 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Section 379 of the IPC and sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 11. The appeal is allowed in part. 12. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 13. Record be sent back to the trial court.