Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Poonjia @ Poonja – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused–appellants, calling into question the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.1993 and the consequent order of sentence dated 02.09.1993, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.94/1990 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Name of the Accused | Offence for which Convicted | Substantive Sentence | Fine and Default Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poonjia @ Poonja | 304-II IPC | 8 years’ RI | Fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo six months SI |
| Poonjia @ Poonja | 325/34 IPC | One Year SI | Fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo three months’ RI |
| Peeter | 304-II r.w. Sec.34 of the IPC | Given benefit of Probation u/s 360 Cr.P.C. and | Ordered to pay compensation u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to injured Hom Singh and widow Smt. Kapoori Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively |
2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case unfolds from an allegation that the accused–appellants were responsible for causing the death of one Jorji and for inflicting injuries upon Hom Singh, allegedly by pelting stones. The edifice of the prosecution rests substantially
The court established that youth and lack of premeditation are significant mitigating factors in sentencing, justifying a modification of the punishment while affirming the conviction under IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence based on mitigating factors, emphasizing the need for reformative justice in sentencing after extensive delay in proceedings.
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served, acknowledging the appellant's age and absence of prior offenses.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and medical evidence raise doubts on intent and culpability under Section 302 IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to time already served, emphasizing reformative justice based on the elapsed time and personal circumstances of the appellants.
The reformation of the appellant during the period of trial and incarceration was a key factor in modifying the quantum of sentences, aligning with the reformative theory of punishment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
