CRIMINAL APPEAL 514/1989 on 9 January 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.880/2002(Ramesh Versus The State of Rajasthan)

29[th] May, 2014

Date of Order

::

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, counsel for the petitioner Mr. Virendra Godara, PP for the State This revision has been filed by thepetitioner against the judgment dated 9.1.2002 passedby Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh MurderCases), Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 107/2001, wherebythe appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissedand the judgment dated 28.1.1997 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipurin Cr. Case No. 514/1989, convicting and sentencingthe petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and304A IPC as under, has been affirmed:

Under Section 279 IPC: To undergo 1 month's SI

together with fine of Rs. 200/-; in default ofpayment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SIUnder Section 304A IPC: To undergo 3 months' SI withfine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo 1 month's SI

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

“On 8.2.1989, complainant Banshi Lal lodged a written report at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar,Jaipur. On the basis of the said report, an FIR cameto be registered against the accused petitioner by the police. After completion of investigation, thepolice submitted a challan against the accusedpetitioner. The trial court framed charges againstthe petitioner and the same were readover to him. Theaccused petitioner denied for the same and claimedfor trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examinedits witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accusedpetitioner were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.After hearing both the sides, the learned trial courtpassed the judgment dated 28.1.1997 convicting andsentencing the petitioner for the aforesaid offences,as indicated above. Against the said judgment dated28.1.1997 passed by the trial court, the petitionerpreferred an appeal before the appellate court, butthe appellate court vide judgment dated 9.1.2002dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passedby the trial court.”

Hence, this cr. revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended thathe is not challenging the conviction part of thejudgments of the courts below, but he is onlyrequesting to this Court that looking to the factthe matter pertains to the year 1989 which is about25 years ago from today approximately, the accusedpetitioner has remained in confinment for about 5days; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family,having a large family dependent upon him; and he is not the habitual offender; either he should be giventhe benefit of probation and if not, then he shouldbe released for the period already undergone by himin confinement, as indicated here-in-above.

Learned PP appearing for the State hasopposed the same.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material onrecord.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase and keeping in mind the arguments of learnedcounsel for the parties, I do not think it proper torelease the accused petitioner on probation, but inmy view, ends of justice would be met if the sentenceawarded to the petitioner is reduced to the periodalready undergone by him in confinement, as indicatedhere-in-above. Hence, this revision petition isdisposed of with the following directions:

i)The conviction of the petitioner as awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained. the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained.

ii) The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to theperiod already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.

iii)The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.

Impugned judgments stand modified, as

indicated hereinabove.

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

DK

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

Dilip KhandelwalPA