State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI 26/03/2025 Order

1. As per the death certificates annexed with the office report, the accused-petitioner Nos.1 & 4, namely Badri lal & Pappu @ Hari Mohan respectively, have expired.

2. In view of the above, the present revision petition stands abated qua the petitioner Nos.1 & 4.

3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘petitioners’) against the judgment dt.22.02.2005 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A) Cases, Baran (Rajasthan) in Criminal Appeal No.06/2005, whereby the judgment dated 17.04.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran, in Criminal Case No.159/2000, convicting the petitioners for the alleged offences [2025:RJ-JP:13896] (2 of 5) [CRLR-217/2005] and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine, was upheld.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sentence, so awarded to the petitioners, was suspended by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2005. Learned counsel further submits that the injured-Ramgop has clearly stated in his statement recorded before the learned Trial Court that the petitioner No.1-Badri Lal, hit the injured-Ramgop on the head & wrist of the left hand with a ‘Khuntia’, petitioner No.4- Pappu also hit on the left eye of the injured with a ‘Khuntia’, the petitioner No. 2-Jai lal, hit the injured with a stick on his chest and the petitioner No.3-Satya Narain, hit the injured on his left hand side. Learned counsel further submits that the grievous injuries suffered by the injured-Ramgop, have not been caused by the present petitioners rather the same have been caused by the petitioner Nos.1 & 4, who have already been expired. Learned counsel further submits that the incident took place in the year 2000 and the petitioners are facing trial from last 25 years. The petitioners have already served sentence for a period of approximately three months. Learned counsel makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- [2025:RJ-JP:13896] (3 of 5) [CRLR-217/2005] i. Girdhari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2005 (2) R.C.C. 881 ii. Munna Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (4) RLW 3028 (Raj.) iii. Ram prasad @ Gudda Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Crl. Rev. Petition No. iv. Laldeen Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Crl. Rev. Petition No. 645/2024 v. Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Crl. Rev. Petition No. 305/2024

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the petitioners. He further prays that the impugned judgments & orders passed by the Courts below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the petitioners may be also maintained.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material made available on record.

8. 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) [2025:RJ-JP:13896] (4 of 5) [CRLR-217/2005] “...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...”

9. We have also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2022 (1) BLJ 366, wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him on the, inter-alia, ground that he has already undergone a sentence of three months & nineteen days and also the incident took place long ago and there is no indication that the appellant has been involved in any untoward activities before or after the incident, which highlights the appellant’s good character.

10. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2000 and this revision petition has been pending adjudication since year 2005.

11. It is emanating from the record that the present petitioners are quinquagenarians and the injuries sustained by the injured- Ramgop, which were grievous in nature, have not been caused by the petitioners rather the same were caused by the petitioner Nos.1 & 4, who have already been expired. Thus, looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have remained in detention for a period of approximately three months and they are facing trial from last 25 years, it will be just & proper if the sentence awarded by the [2025:RJ-JP:13896] (5 of 5) [CRLR-217/2005] learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 & 326/34 I.P.C., is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

12. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence(s) under Section(s) 341, 323/34 & 326/34 I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are not in judicial custody, thus, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

13. All Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SAHIL SONI/9 (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J