Mani Ram Punna Ram v. State of Rajasthan) and

: Mr. Shivlal Meena & Nemichand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL JUDGMENT 10/02/2025

1. Both these revision petitions shall stand decided by this common judgment as they arise out of same incident.

2. These criminal present revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the accused-petitioners - Mani Ram @ Punna Ram and Laxmi Narayan, against Judgment and Order dated [2025:RJ-JP:5711] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1701/2011]

05.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal Nos. 18/2007 (Mani Ram @ Punna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan) and 17/207 (Laxmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan), vide which criminal appeals filed by the accused-petitioners against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 10.04.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No.54/2006 (State of Rajasthan vs. Mani Ram @ Punnaram & anr.) convicting and sentencing them for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, were dismissed.

3. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of a written report submitted by complainant - Lohadiram (P.W. 1) with respect to an incident occurred on 29.05.2006, wherein allegation of outraging her modesty while she had gone to bring water from hand pump and on making noise, Bhagoti came to rescue her, who was beaten by accused, F.I.R. No.111/2006 was registered at Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 354 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 509 & 354/34 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 10.04.2007 acquitting accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 509 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of [2025:RJ-JP:5711] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1701/2011] I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2007, accused-petitioners preferred separate appeals before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2011 dismissing the appeals and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, these criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the accused- petitioners.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners do not wish to press instant revision petitions challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefer to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2006 i.e. more than 18 years ago; accused-petitioners were 25 and 28 years of age at the time of incident and now they are around 43 and 46 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 18 years; accused-petitioners who are sole bread earners in the family, belong to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 28 and 21 days, respectively, and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioners, therefore, they pray that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. [2025:RJ-JP:5711] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1701/2011]

7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (Appeal [Cri] No. 278 of 1997) decided on 14.11.2003.

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

9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgment cited in this case.

10. Since the revision petitions against conviction of the accused-petitioners are not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused- petitioners are maintained.

11. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioners, who were only 25 and 28 years young boys at the time of incident, have already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 18 years and they remained incarcerated for some time after passing [2025:RJ-JP:5711] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1701/2011] of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioners is produced on record.

12. 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…”

13. 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-petitioners are sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that families of the petitioners will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now. [2025:RJ-JP:5711] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1701/2011]

14. Consequently, the judgments dated 05.11.2011 and

10.04.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence under section 354 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. awarded to the accused-petitioners by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

15. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence.

16. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. INDER /33-34 (BHUWAN GOYAL),J