[2025:RJ-JP:28783] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 86/1989 Sukh Singh S/o Shri Anandsingh aged about 45 years R/o Anandgarh Saraswati Kund Balananji Ke Temple ke Pas Purani Basti Jaipur ----Appellant-Accused In Central Jail Jaipur Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta Mr. Javed Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 29/07/2025 This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated 16.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case no.17/1986 whereby, while convicting the accused-appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’) under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1959’), he has been sentenced as under:- Section 307 IPC- 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs.100/- fine; in default whereof, one month simple imprisonment. Section 27 of the Act of 1959- 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:28783] (2 of 6) [CRLA-86/1989] The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 09.08.1986 (Ex. P3) was submited by Shri Jagmohanlal (PW-4) with the Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur alleging therein that when the labourers were cleaning the land situated behind Balanandji Mandir, Chandpole Bazar, the appellant came at the site and threatened them of dire consequences if they continue with cleaning work whereafter, the appellant went to his residence, came back armed with a gun and opened fire on him-the complainant resulting into pellet injuries. An FIR No.398/1986 (Ex. P11) was lodged under Section 307 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Act of 1959. He pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgement dated 16.03.1989 as stated hereinabove. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is almost 39 years old, the appellant, who was aged 36 years at the relevant time, is now aged about 75 years and has been facing trauma of the pendency of this criminal case for last about 39 years. He submits that there is no evidence of any previous enmity between the parties and the prosecution has failed to establish the motive of the appellant for causing the injuries which are simple in nature. He, therefore, prays that while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed vide judgement impugned dated 16.03.1989 be reduced to the period already undergone and the criminal appeal be allowed. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. [2025:RJ-JP:28783] (3 of 6) [CRLA-86/1989] Heard. Considered. In the instant case, the appellant has been convicted, vide judgement impugned dated 16.03.1989, under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Act of 1959 and sentenced as stated hereinabove. Since, the appellant has pleaded ‘right of defence’, the question as to whether the injuries on the person of the injured complainant-Shri Jagmohanlal were inflicted by him or not requires no consideration. However, relying on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellant was aged about 36 years at the relevant time and is now aged about 75 years and has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 39 years, i.e., the date of incident being 09.08.1986. The material on record does not disclose any previous enmity between the parties and there is no motive as well in causing the incident. As per the statement of Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-10)-the Medical Jurist who examined the injured and prepared the Medico Legal Report (EX.P11A), all the injuries were simple in nature. As per the report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit for last about 39 years. 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:28783] (4 of 6) [CRLA-86/1989] 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..." 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 [2025:RJ-JP:28783] (5 of 6) [CRLA-86/1989] 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 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.” Taking into consideration the conspectus of facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this Court feels that ends of justice will be met if, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 16.03.1989, the sentence awarded to him under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of [2025:RJ-JP:28783] (6 of 6) [CRLA-86/1989] the Act of 1959 is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone. However, he shall 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. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/3