Doongar Singh vs State of Rajasthan - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 580

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Doongar Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1994
Decided On : 17-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Bhati.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 148,302,376A,447 – Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 - Section 3(1) (4) - Protection of children from sexual offence Act,2012 – Rioting, armed with deadly weapons – Punishment for Murder – Punishment for criminal trespass - Held, This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from herein above, that Hon’ble Apex Court, in(supra), held that the Court may, in interest of justice, reduce sentence awarded to accused to period of sentence already undergone by him - More so, this would be directly when matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce sentence awarded to an accused person, to time/sentence already served by him - Similarly, in special acts, with regard to age/pendency of matter, depending on facts and circumstances of case, Court may deem it a fit case for applying same aforementioned principle to reduce sentence awarded to period already undergone by him – Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1994, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 86/94 whereby the appellants No. 1 and 2 though acquitted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447 of IPC and Section 3(1) (4) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act IPC and the sentence awarded to the appellants to run concurrently as under:

Section 148 IPC	Six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' S.I. (each)
Section 447 IPC	A fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ S.I. (each)
Section 3(1)(4) SC/ST Act	Six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ S.I.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that out of twelve accused-appellants, four accused-appellants namely appellant No. 1-Doongar Singh, appellant No. 2-Devi Singh, appellant No. 3-Kishore Singh and appellant No. 7-Jabar Singh have expired and the appeal qua them has already been abated vide order dated 28.06.2017 and 25.04.2018 respectively. The only accused-appellant No. 4-Hamir Singh, appellant No. 5-Jai Singh, appellant No. 6-Chain Singh, appellant No. 8-Khushal Singh, appellant No. 9-Jalam Singh, appellant No. 10-Khinv Singh, appellant No. 11-Raju Singh and appellant No. 12-Shyam Singh are surviving.

3.1 Learned counsel submits that in the special circumstances, where the matters are of extremely old pendency and unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits, and thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them.

3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 15.12.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 555/1994.

3.3. Learned counsel, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

5.1. 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 West Bengal, (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 alre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document