State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan) vide which while acquitting

: Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL JUDGMENT 10/02/2025

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by accused-appellant - Kalyan against Judgment and Order dated 22.08.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No. 04/1994 (State of Rajasthan vs. Kalyan) vide which while acquitting accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C., he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of a written report (Ex.P/6) submitted by complainant - Satyanarayan (P.W.4) with respect to an incident occurred on 12.01.1994, wherein allegation levelled was that complainant's brother died due to [2025:RJ-JP:5677] (2 of 5) [CRLA-442/1995] coming in contact with electricity wires laying in the field of the accused resulting into his homicidal death, F.I.R. No.03/1994 was registered at Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer for the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charge of aforesaid offence and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated

22.08.1995, whereby while acquitting accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C., he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 304-A of I.P.C., as stated above. Hence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-appellant does not wish to press instant appeal challenging judgment passed by the trial court qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years ago; accused-appellant Kalyan was young boy at the time of incident and now he is around 63 years old and is facing agony of trial since last more than 30 years; accused-appellant who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society. He remained in police and judicial custody for a period of eight days. There is no previous conviction [2025:RJ-JP:5677] (3 of 5) [CRLA-442/1995] recorded against accused-appellant, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Nagegowda vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 6 KarLJ 101 as well as Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in the case of Bhumani Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1554/1998) decided on 24.01.2023.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the appeal, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned speaking order passed by the trial court, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

8. I have considered arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgment passed by the trial court and record of the case.

9. Since the appeal against conviction of the accused-appellant is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment passed by trial court qua conviction of the accused- appellant. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-appellant is maintained. [2025:RJ-JP:5677] (4 of 5) [CRLA-442/1995]

10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-appellant, who was a young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 30 years and he remained incarcerated for some time and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-appellant is produced on record.

11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “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) “…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…”

12. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-appellant is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace [2025:RJ-JP:5677] (5 of 5) [CRLA-442/1995] and harmony in the village and that family of the appellant will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

13. Consequently, the judgment dated 22.08.1995 passed by the trial court qua conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C is affirmed but quantum of sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence by the trial court is modified and substantive sentences awarded to him for said offences is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

14. With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.

15. A copy of this order along with record be sent to the trial court forthwith. INDER /14 (BHUWAN GOYAL),J