Ramchandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the

: Mr. Manvinder Singh Shekhawat Dy. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 17/09/2025

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner - Ramchandra Singh against Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Sikar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 42/03 (26/03) (Ramchandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting him for the offence under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. and sentencing him the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months imprisonment, has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:37782] (2 of 6) [CRLR-602/2008]

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 03.06.1998 at 9.15 p.m., complainant Deburam (P.W. 1) while undergoing treatment at Male Orthopedic Ward in Shri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar, gave parcha bayan to police to the effect that on that date in the evening at around 7 O’clock, he along- with his sons Bhanwar Singh and Gopal was coming from Dhani to village Bhadwasi. On the way, they saw a branch of tree (dali) was lying near the Guwadi of Ramchandra when they all three were trying to remove the same, at that time, accused Ramchandra armed with iron Dhariya came and inflicted a Dhariya blow, upon which he tried to rescue, but his left hand thumb was cut down from the top and it fell down. Thereafter, accused inflicted second blow on his left shoulder, due to which he received grievous injury and blood oozed. The accused started giving beating to the complainant’s sons. Then, his sons anyhow rescued themselves and ran away etc. On the basis of said parcha bayan, F.I.R. No. 116/1998 was registered at Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 324 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the offence under Sections 326, 324 & 283 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 283, 324 & 326 of I.P.C. and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order whereby acquitted the petitioner for the offence under section 283 of I.P.C. but convicted him for the offences under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2003, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before [2025:RJ-JP:37782] (3 of 6) [CRLR-602/2008] the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 20.06.2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1998 i.e. around 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 48 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 75 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 27 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 26 days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, 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-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2192 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Tej Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. [2025:RJ-JP:37782] (4 of 6) [CRLR-602/2008] 283/2007) decided on 16.07.2025, Jagdish Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 407/2004) decided on 15.05.2024, Shankar lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2002) decided on 05.07.2022 and Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 654/2002) decided on 29.06.2022.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, 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 and affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

8. 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.

9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is 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-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue [2025:RJ-JP:37782] (5 of 6) [CRLR-602/2008] as also the fact that accused-petitioner, who was only 48 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 27 years and he has remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is 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 family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

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. Consequently, the judgments dated 20.06.2008 and

28.03.2003 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the [2025:RJ-JP:37782] (6 of 6) [CRLR-602/2008] accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. is modified to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

14. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. Anu/7 (BHUWAN GOYAL),J