HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Mangi Lal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 252/1994
Decided On : 13-07-2022
Sentencing - Criminal Appeal - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offenses under Sections 147, 323/149 & 304-II/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The incident arose from a dispute over agricultural land, resulting in cross cases being registered. The appellants, aged between 55 and 90, sought reduction of their sentences based on their age and the long pendency of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appellants' prayer, considering their age, the doctor's statement, the nature of allegations, cross-cases, acquittal under Section 447 of IPC, and lack of specific attributions. The appellants' convictions were maintained, but their sentences were reduced to the period already undergone.
Issues: The issues involved the convictions and sentences of the appellants for offenses under IPC, the nature of the incident, and the appellants' request for sentence reduction based on age and case pendency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellants' age, the nature of allegations, cross-cases, acquittal under Section 447 of IPC, and lack of specific attributions as reasons to allow the appellants' prayer for sentence reduction.
Final Decision: The present appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the appellants' convictions but reducing their sentences to the period already undergone. The appellants were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal be accepted, the convictions and the sentences of the appellants be quashed and they be acquitted of the charges or any other appropriate order which may be considered just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed. "
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 12.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case 131/88 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323/149 & 304-II/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one years' R.I.; sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. & sentenced to undergo four years' R.I. respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is of 06.11.1988, in which, the dispute arose regarding the ownership of a particular agricultural land between the parties and cross cases were registered. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are omnibus and the doctor has categorically opined in his statement that ordinarily the injuries were not sufficient to cause death.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the acquittal of the appellants under Section 447 of the IPC has a long bearing upon the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that Section 447 IPC was charged with in the FIR lodged by the appellants, which was registered as 520/1988 under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 147 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that none of the appellants have any criminal antecedents and it was a sudden altercation, which resulted into the present incident. However, after making all these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants makes a limited submission that appellant No. 1 is a 90 years old; appellant No. 2 is a 62 years old; appellant No. 3 is a 79 years old; appellant No. 4 is a 64 years old; appellant No. 5 is a 55 years old and appellant No. 6 is a 75 years of old and looking into the age and long pendency along with all facts mentioned above, the sentence of the accused appellants be reduced with the period of sentence already undergone by them.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 20.05.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (SOS) No. 269/1994
8. Learned counsel for the appellants, 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.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. 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)
"...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
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648
The court's decision emphasized the consideration of witness statements, the nature of the offense, and the age of the appellants in determining the appropriateness of the sentence.
The court considered the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's application of sentencing principles, considering the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and other atte....
The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing policy to reduce the appellants' sentence to the period already undergone.
The court must consider the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing, as well as the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances.
The court emphasized the consideration of the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already spent in custody and may reduce the sentence accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to substitute the sentence with the period already undergone by the appellant, considering the serious lacunae in the prosec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.