Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2217 (RAJ)

Munna @ Muneshiya v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-11

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2015 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandphiya, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 77/2008, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under: Offence under Section 148 IPC Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' Additional S.I. Offence under Section 323/149 IPC One month's S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 5 days' Additional S.I. Offence under Section 325/149 IPC One year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional S.I. Offence under Section 326/149 IPC Two year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional S.I. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.1996, complainant Lalia submitted an oral report at Police Station Bhadesar to the effect that the accused persons namely Badaniya, Munna, Kailashiya, Rameshiya, Ganpat & Bhanwariya came armed with deadly weapons like sword, axe, dhariya etc. and caused grievous injuries to the complainant and his father. On this report, the police registered the case against the accused persons including the present petitioner and for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC and started investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 326 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused persons including the petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. 6. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused persons including the petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.01.2013 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier. 7. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2017. Hence this revision petition. 8. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1996 and he has so far suffered a sentence of about three months, out of total sentence of two years. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1996 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of three months incarceration out of total sentence of two years S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 13. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.