[2025:RJ-JP:14457] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 288/1989 Heera S/o Dayala R/o Village Banetha Ka Jhopra Tan Banetha Police Station Uniyara District Tonk at present in District Jail Tonk ----Accused/Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 28/03/2025 This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated 11.08.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk (Rajasthan) (for brevity, "learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No.14/1986 whereby, while convicting the accused appellant- Heera under Section 304 Part II IPC, he has been sentenced as under:- 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine; in default whereof, 2 months' rigorous imprisonment. The relevant facts in brief are that on a parcha bayan (Ex.P/6) of the injured witness-Suwalal (PW-1), an FIR dated 12.12.1985 (Ex.P/7) came to be lodged at the Police Station Uniara, District Tonk against the appellant and co-accused persons alleging therein that on account of an old enmity in between the family of the complainant and the family of Dayala due to a land dispute, the accused-appellant alongwith co-accused persons have, armed with weapons, severely beaten them resulting into [2025:RJ-JP:14457] (2 of 6) [CRLA-288/1989] injuries to various persons. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 323 IPC; but, later on, on account of death of Shri Ram Ratan and injury reports, Sections 302, 325, 326 and 341 were added. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed under the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323 and 324 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. The learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, after trial, vide judgement impugned dated 11.08.1999 as stated herein above. Eschewing merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is almost 40 years old, the appellant, who was aged about 23 years at that time, is of about 63 years of age now. He further submits that while acquitting him of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC, he has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against him is of inflicting a sharp edged injury on the right hand of deceased-Ram Ratan, i.e., non-vital part of the body. He submits that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of three months and ten days. He, therefore, prays that while maintaining the conviction, the appellant's sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgement of this Court dated 31.08.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.83/1989: Gurudayal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 11.03.1989 be quashed and set aside and the criminal appeal be allowed in terms prayed for. [2025:RJ-JP:14457] (3 of 6) [CRLA-288/1989] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. The incident is about 40 years old. As many as three accused persons were convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 304 Part II IPC including the appellant while acquitting them from the charge under Section 302/149 IPC. The deceased-Ram Ratan has received five injuries as per injury report dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.P/23) which are on non-vital parts of the body. The appellant, who has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 40 years, was 23 years of age at that time as per the arrest memo (Ex.P/12) and is 63 years of age now. As per the custody certificate dated 07.03.2025 issued by the Superintendent, District Jail Tonk, the petitioner has remained in pre-conviction and post-conviction custody for a total period of three months and ten days. As per the report dated 25.03.2025 furnished by SHO, Poslice Station Banetha, District Tonk, the appellant has no criminal antecedent except than the instant case. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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 [2025:RJ-JP:14457] (4 of 6) [CRLA-288/1989] 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..." Their Lordships have held in case of Panchashila Dada Messhram versus State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 81, as under:- “8. However, as far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that at the time of incident, the appellant was in advanced stage of her pregnancy and had given birth to a girl child which had expired soon after the birth. The evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates that the husband of the appellant was coming near the bathroom with a cane so as to prevent the deceased from coming out of the bathroom. Such an act is not attributed to the appellant at all. As on today, the appellant is of more than 67 years of age. The record further indicates that the appellant has also a major daughter, who was aged 10 years at the time of the incident and a son. On [2025:RJ-JP:14457] (5 of 6) [CRLA-288/1989] the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.” This Court has, in the case of Gurudayal Singh (supra) involving identical controversy, wherein, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced the sentence awarded to him for the period already undergone while maintaining his conviction. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances as discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the period already undergone maintaining his conviction. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 11.08.1989, the sentence awarded to him under Section 304 Part II IPC is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone. However, he shall [2025:RJ-JP:14457] (6 of 6) [CRLA-288/1989] deposit the fine within a period of two months from today failing which he shall serve the default sentence and trial court shall proceed in accordance with law. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/4