Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1258 (RAJ)

HURMA AND ORS. v. STATE

2025-05-07

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner No.6 – Amra passed away and submitted his death certificate which is hereby taken on record. 2. In these circumstances, the present criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner No.6 - Amra is dismissed as abated. 3. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 21.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.04/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.79/1997 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner No.1 - Hurma as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 326 IPC 3 years’ RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 324 IPC 2 years’ RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 323 IPC 1 year’s RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 148 IPC 1 year’s RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI The petitioners No.2 to 5 were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 326/149 IPC 3 years’ RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 324/149 IPC 2 years’ RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 323/149 IPC 1 year’s RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI Section 148 IPC 1 year’s RI Rs.500/- 1 month’s SI 4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 20.04.1997 complainant Manilal submitted a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur inter alia alleging that on 24.03.1997 at about 5 PM when he was going towards his house, the accused persons abused the complainant and assaulted him with deadly weapons due to which he got seriously injured. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned. 6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 323 & 326 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same. During the course of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same. In defence, one witness was examined and various documents were exhibited. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the accused for aforementioned offences vide judgment dated 15.12.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.08.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh, representing the petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1997. The petitioner No.1 had remained in jail for about 2 months and petitioners No.2 to 5 remained in jail for about 1 month after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society. They are facing trial since the year 1997 and they have languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their sentence. 8. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and except the present one no other case has been registered against them. 9. 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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the rigor for last 28 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. 10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the rigor for last 28 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ( 2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioners have suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is of three years as well as the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioners have already undergone till date. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.04/2002 and the judgment dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.79/1997 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court 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 fine amount is hereby maintained. The fine amount imposed by trial Court, if not already deposited, then two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months’ S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 12. The revision petition is allowed in part. 13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.