[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rang Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31225) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31225]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 171/1996
Rang Lal S/o Khana Gurjar, R/o Katunda, Tehsil Begu, Distt.
Chittorgarh [Lodged at District Jail, Pratapgarh]
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas with
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
16/07/2025
By way of filing the instant criminal appeal, a challenge has been
made to the order dated 29.02.1996 passed by the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh, in Session Case No.181/1994
whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant
for 4 years’ RI and a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo 3 months’ SI for
the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325/323 of IPC.
The period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 26.07.1992,
Kanhaiya Lal submitted a written report at the concerned Police Station
alleging that the appellant assaulted his brother Pyar Chand with a lathi
while he was sitting at a bus stop with his children waiting for a bus.
Kanhaiya Lal also stated that he got the information of assault from one
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31225] (2 of 4) [CRLA-171/1996]
Bashir and upon receiving this information, he went to the place of
incident where he found his brother lying injured. Subsequently,
Kanhaiya Lal went to the police to register a complaint.
On the basis of said report, the police registered a case under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC against appellant and commenced the
investigation. During the course of investigation, offence under Section
307 of IPC was added and subsequently, the trial court framed charges
against the appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and
325/323 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 08 witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of
their case. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and claimed trial.
In defence, two witnesses were examined.
The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 341 and
convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections
307 and 325/323 of IPC vide judgment dated 29.02.1996. The learned
trial court also ordered the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- as
compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. to injrued Pyar Chand.
Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Pravin Vyas, representing the appellant, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned courts below, but at the
same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1992.
The accused-appellant had remained in judicial custody for about
15 days. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a
very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. The
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31225] (3 of 4) [CRLA-171/1996]
accused-appellant has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a
lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
Learned AAG though opposed the submissions made on behalf of
the appellant but does not refute the fact that the appellant has
remained behind the bars for about 15 days and except the present
one, no other case has been registered against him.
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.
As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant
remained in jail for some time. 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
appellant, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the appellant has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is four
years 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 appellant has already
undergone till date.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29.02.1996 passed
by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh, in
Session Case No.181/1994 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence
awarded by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31225] (4 of 4) [CRLA-171/1996]
sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to
serve the interest of justice. The fine amount imposed by the trial court
is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if
not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is
granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the trial
court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one
month’s simple imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
The criminal appeal is allowed in part.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Record of the court below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
192-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link