Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganeshlal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5806) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5806]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 988/2006
Ganeshlal S/o Bherulal Gurjar B/c Gurjar, R/o Bid-Ka-Khera, P.S.
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.
(Lodged in Sub Jail, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to Mr.
Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 27.10.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara
in Criminal Appeal No.39/2003 whereby the learned appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 06.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal
Case No.127/1998 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 148 IPC 3 months' SI - -
Section 447 IPC 3 months' SI - -
Section 435 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 3 months' SI
Section 323 IPC 3 months' SI - -
Section 325 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.250/- 1 month SI
R/w 149 IPC
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5806] (2 of 5) [CRLR-988/2006]
Rs.100/- were imposed as prosecution expenses on surmises
& conjunctures.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 02.09.1997, on
the basis of ‘Parcha Bayan’ of complainant Chittar Lal an FIR has
been lodged against the present petitioner. It is alleged in the
‘Parcha Bayan’ that today at about 10:30 AM he was doing
agricultural work in his field with tractor of one Ishwar Jat. At that
time, present petitioner along with other accused persons came to
his field with weapons and started quarreling & beating him and
his family members. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was
registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 325, 323, 435/149,
352, 427 & 504 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 16
witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited.
Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then,
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the
accused for offence under Sections 148, 447, 325/149, 323 & 435
of IPC vide judgment dated 06.08.2003 and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5806] (3 of 5) [CRLR-988/2006]
was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.10.2006. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat, representing the
petitioner, 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. He had remained in jail for about 25 days after passing
of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been
reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belong
to the weaker section of the society. He was about 34 years old at
the time of incident, now, he is aged about about 62 years and he
is facing trial since the year 1997 and he has languished in jail for
some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his
sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 25 days and
except the present one no other case has been registered against
him.
7. 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.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5806] (4 of 5) [CRLR-988/2006]
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 petitioner, their status in the society and the fact that
the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days and the
maximum sentence imposed upon him is of six months as well as
the fact that he 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 petitioner has
already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
27.10.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.39/2003 and
the judgment dated 06.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Case
No.127/1998 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by
the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence
he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to
serve the interest of justice. The fine amount and prosecution
expenses are maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial
Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’
time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial
Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo
one month’s S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to
surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5806] (5 of 5) [CRLR-988/2006]
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
30-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)