Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bheru Lal And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2744) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2744]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1164/2006
1. Bheru Lal S/o Megha Gurjar, aged about 41 years, R/o
Dhanpura, P.S. Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara.
2. Bhaga S/o Megha Gurjar, aged about 31 years, R/o
Dhanpura, P.S. Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara.
3. Hemraj S/o Megha Gurjar, aged about 26 years, R/o
Dhanpura, P.S. Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara.
4. Dharma S/o Megha Gurjar, aged about 25 years, R/o
Dhanpura, P.S. Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara.
(At present lodged at Sub Jail, Gulabpura.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 12.12.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara
in Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 whereby the learned appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 25.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Case
No.40/1999 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioners No.1 to No.3 as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 147 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.300/- 7 days' SI
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:39:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2744] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1164/2006]
Section 452 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 15 days' SI
Section 325/149 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 1 month SI
IPC
Section 323/149 1 month SI Rs.300/- 7 days' SI
IPC
The trial Judge convicted the petitioner No.4 as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 147 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.300/- 7 days' SI
Section 452 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 15 days' SI
Section 325 IPC 1 year SI Rs.1,000/- 1 month SI
Section 323/149 1 month SI Rs.300/- 7 days' SI
IPC
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 07.02.1999,
injrued – Panna Lal lodged an FIR to the extent that today at
about 9 AM accused Dharma came at his house and asked him to
come outside the house to talk about disputed land. When he
went to the disputed land, the petitioner argued with the injured
and when injured was going from the site, the petitioner Bheru
Gurjar came with lathi & an iron rod and started beating & abusing
him. When Ramlal, son of injured came there the petitioners
assaulted him too. 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.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323 & 325
of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the
trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were
examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:39:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2744] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1164/2006]
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners 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 147, 452, 325 & 323 of IPC
vide judgment dated 25.08.2005 and sentenced them as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which
was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2006. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ravindra 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 1999. They had remained in jail for about nine days 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. Petitioner No.1 was
about 34 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about
60 years, petitioner No.2 was about 24 years old at the time of
incident, now, he is aged about about 50 years, petitioner No.3
was about 19 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged
about about 45 years and petitioner No.4 was about 18 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about about 44 years and
they are facing trial since the year 1999 and they have languished
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:39:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2744] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1164/2006]
in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in
reducing their sentence.
6. 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 about one
month and except the present one no other case has been
registered against them.
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
petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the
rigor for last 26 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 one year 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.
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:39:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2744] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1164/2006]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
12.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gulabpura in Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 and the judgment dated
25.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gulabpura in Case No.40/1999 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 amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not
already deposited by the petitioners, then two months’ time is
hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one
month’s S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
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 16/01/2025 at 09:39:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)