[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ram Niwas @ Sikandar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31689) on 16 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:31689]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 590/2008
Ram Niwas @ Sikandar S/o. Shri Nura, R/o Village Bhopalgarh,
Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur. (Raj.)
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/07/2025
1. In compliance of the order dated 09.07.2025, learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 11.07.2025, wherein it is
mentioned that the petitioner is alive.
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 23.06.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.62/2008
(06/08), whereby the said appeal was partly allowed. The said
appeal was filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipar City, District
Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal
Original Case No.423/1999.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31689] (2 of 5) [CRLR-590/2008]
3. Vide judgment dated 14.11.2007, the learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under :
Conviction for the Sentence Fine In default of
offences under Awarded Amount payment of
Sections fine further
undergo
447 of IPC 1 Month’s – –
Simple
Imprisonment
9/51 of Wild Life 3 Years’ ₹10,000 3 Months’
(Protection) Act, 1972 r/w Simple Simple
Sec. 3 of Rajasthan Imprisonment Imprisonment
Preservation of Certain
Animals Act.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
4. Vide judgment dated 23.06.2008, the learned appellate court
acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 9/51 of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and convicted and sentenced as
under :
Conviction for the Sentence Fine In default of
offences under Awarded Amount payment of
Sections fine further
undergo
447 of IPC 1 Month’s ₹100/- 7 Days’ Simple
Simple Imprisonment
Imprisonment
4 Rajasthan Preservation 1 Month’s ₹100/- 7 Days’ Simple
of Certain Animals Act. Simple Imprisonment
Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
23.08.1999, a written report was lodged by complainant – Ghewar
Ram alleging that on that day at about 09:00 A.M., when he
reached his field situated at Rohi, Bhopalgarh, he saw that
accused petitioner had tied two dead peacocks. Upon seeing the
complainant coming to the field, the accused petitioner fled from
there. On the said written report, the FIR No.138/1999 was
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31689] (3 of 5) [CRLR-590/2008]registered at Police Station Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur against
the petitioner and investigation was commenced.
5.1. 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 Section 447 of IPC and Section 9/51 of Wild Life
(Protection) Act read with Section 3 of Rajasthan Preservation of
Certain Animals Act vide judgment dated 14.11.2007. The said
judgment was challenged before the learned appellate court, who
vide judgment dated 23.06.2008 acquitted the accused petitioner
for the offence 9/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, maintained the
convicted and sentenced for the offence 447 of IPC and further
convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence 4 of
Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act.
6. 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 26.06.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.153/2008.
6.1. 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 2008. 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.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31689] (4 of 5) [CRLR-590/2008]
7. 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 2008.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1999 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
9.1. 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…”
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31689] (5 of 5) [CRLR-590/2008]
10. 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.
10.1. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 447 IPC and Section 4
of Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 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.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of.
12. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
13. Report dated 11.07.2025, produced by the learned Public
Prosecutor in compliance of the order dated 09.07.2025, be taken
on record.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.16
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:20:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link