Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhoora Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32728) on 23 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:32728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 331/2007
Bhoora Ram S/o Gajja Ji, R/o Sikwada, Tehsil Bhinwal, District
Jalore.
(Lodged in District Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mrinal Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/07/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
21.07.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is alive.
The same be taken on record.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 09.04.2007 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter to be referred
as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.6/2007, whereby
the said appeal was dismissed and judgment dated 18.01.2007
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial
court’) in Criminal Regular Case No.683/2001 was upheld.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32728] (2 of 5) [CRLR-331/2007]
2.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned trial court as
below :-
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
323 of IPC 6 Months’ Simple Rs.200/- 7 Days’ Simple
Imprisonment Imprisonment
270 of IPC 6 Months’ Simple Rs.200/- 7 Days’ Simple
Imprisonment Imprisonment
355 of IPC 6 Months’ Simple Rs.200/- 7 Days’ Simple
Imprisonment Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
23.08.2001, a written report was lodged by complainant – Bhera
Ram alleging therein that on 19.08.2001 in the morning at around
09:00 AM to 10:00 A.M., when his brother Suresh Kumar, Leela
Ram, Shanti Lal, Bhekaram, Nagaram, Juharam along with 10 to
12 other boys were playing in the school ground, then the
petitioner arrived there, stopped them from playing, abuse them,
punished them and physically assaulted them saying that the
ground was not their father’s property. Due to the excessive
punishment and exhaustion, three of boys viz. Suresh Kumar,
Leela Ram and Shanti Lal defecated in their half-pants, after
which, the petitioner removed their pants and forcibly put the
feces into their mouths. Subsequently, when Shanker, Chhika and
Veera arrived there and intervened, then the petitioner fled the
scene. Afterwards, when the boys were taken home, they began
vomiting and their condition become critical. Thereafter, upon
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32728] (3 of 5) [CRLR-331/2007]
raising a complaint to the petitioner, the petitioner retaliated by
filing a case against them.
3.1. On the said written report, the FIR No.129/2001 was
registered at Police Station Modra, District Jalore against the
petitioner and investigation was commenced.
3.2. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon completion of the
trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court for the
offences under Sections 323, 270 and 355 of IPC vide judgment
dated 18.01.2007 which was upheld by the learned appellate court
vide judgment dated 09.04.2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2007
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.54/2007.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against them since 2007. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of
a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2007.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32728] (4 of 5) [CRLR-331/2007]
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2001 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.
7.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
“84. … … … There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances.”
Haripada Das (supra) :
“4. … … … considering the fact that the respondent had
already undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both
financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the
fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-
1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts
of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone…”
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 270 and 355 of
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32728] (5 of 5) [CRLR-331/2007]
IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.4
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)