Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 89 (RAJ)

Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2012 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 01.08.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Tibbi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 183/2000, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under: S. No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 1. 148 IPC 1 year RI Rs. 1,000/- 1 month SI 2. 447 IPC 3 months RI - - 3. 323/149 IPC 6 months RI - - 4. 326/149 IPC 3 years RI Rs. 2,000/- 2 months SI 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.04.2000, complainant/injured Devsingh gave a parcha bayan at Government hospital to the Police Personnel of PS Tibbi to the effect that the accused persons came armed with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. On this report, the police registered the case against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC and started investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-persons for offence under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 447, 147, 148, 323/149, 326/149 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, one witness was examined as DW-1 and certain documents were exhibited. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.08.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier. 7. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.08.2013. Hence this revision petition. 8. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.08.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier. 7. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.08.2013. Hence this revision petition. 8. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2000 and they have so far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of three years. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 148, 447, 323/149, 326/149 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners 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-petitioners. 11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2000 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of one month incarceration, out of total sentence of three 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-petitioners have 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, 447, 323/149, 326/149 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the amount of fine. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Sections 148, 447, 323/149, 326/149 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence 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 petitioners shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 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 petitioners shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount already deposited by the petitioners shall be adjusted. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 13. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.