Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 30465
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
PARAMJEET SINGH @ BILLU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLR / 845 / 2019
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr DS Thind, Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
The court upheld the trial court's sentencing as adequate, emphasizing respect for judicial discretion in sentencing unless found unjust.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147, 148 - Criminal revision petitions challenging sentences awarded to accused - Complainant contended sentences were inadequate, while accused sought reduction based on time served - Trial court's sentences upheld as adequate considering nature of offences and injuries inflicted. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Sentencing - The court emphasized that the trial court's discretion in sentencing should not be interfered with unless it is found to be inadequate or unjust. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The complainant was assaulted by the accused armed with weapons, resulting in grievous injuries. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them accordingly. (Paras 5-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the sentences imposed by the trial court to be just and proper, dismissing the complainant's appeal for inadequate sentencing. (Paras 7-8)
Issues: The main issues were whether the sentences were inadequate and whether the accused's sentences should be reduced based on time served. (Paras 9-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's sentencing was appropriate given the nature of the offences and injuries sustained, affirming the principle that appellate courts should respect the trial court's discretion in sentencing. (Paras 11-12)
Result: Criminal revision petition No.845/2019 partly allowed; petitioners No.1 & 3's sentences reduced to time already served. Appeal No.897/2019 dismissed.
Judgment
29/01/2024
Both the criminal revision petitions have been preferred before this Court.
Revision No.897/2019 has been preferred by the complainant for awarding lesser / inadequate sentence to the accused respondents 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC by the courts below.
Revision No.845/2019 has been preferred by the accused- petitioners challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.76/2017 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.481/2006, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced each of the present accused-petitioners as under :
| S.No. | Offence | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| 1. | Sec. 341 IPC | 1 months SI | - | - |
| 2. | Sec. 323/149 IPC 6 months SI | - | - | |
| 3. | Sec. 324 IPC | 1 year SI | - | - |
| 4. | Sec. 147 IPC | 6 months SI | - | - |
| 5. | Sec. 148 IPC | 6 months SI | - | - |
| 6. | Sec. 365/149 IPC 1 year SI | Rs.1000/- | 15 days SI | |
| 7. | Sec. 382 IPC | 2 year RI | Rs.1000/- | 15 days SI |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Both the revision petitions are being decided by way of this common judgment as they have arisen out of the same judgments and orders.
Brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2006, complainant Ramgopal gave parcha bayan to the effect that on 16.04.2006 in the morning when he was going towards village Thirajvala, accused- persons came armed with deadly weapons and started beating the complainant. During the scuffle, the complainant received severe injuries. On this parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused persons and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the accused-petitioners before the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 341, 323/149, 324, 365/149, 382,147 , 148 IPC . They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 & DW-2.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2017 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, both the complainant as well as accused-petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the appellate court and the appellate court vide judgment dated 05.07.2019 dismissed the appeal of the accused- petitioners while giving benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act to co-accused persons namely Karamjeet Kaur & Harinder Kaur and also dismissed the appeal of the while enhancing the fine amount. Hence, these revision petitions on behalf of the complainant and accused-petitioners.
During the pendency of the revision petition, accused-petitioner No.2 Tara Singh had expired and revision qua him was dismissed by this Court on 01.02.2021.
APPEAL NO.845/2019 :-
In appeal No.845/2019 preferred by the accused-petitioners, at the threshold counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2006 and accused-petitioners have so far suffered a sentence of about 27 days, out of total sentence of two years’ RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners No.1 & 3 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382 , 147 & 148 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither
