Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12896
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J
DINESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2618/2023|S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 635/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amardeep Lamba, Bharat Shrimali
For the Respondents: Surendra Bishnoi
Poverty and socio-economic deprivation, specifically the inability to furnish bail bonds despite a court order, are valid grounds for the court to exercise leniency in sentencing to ensure that the right to liberty is not hindered by financial incapacity.
Headnote:(A) Sentencing - Proportionality and Leniency - Inability to furnish bail bonds due to extreme poverty and socio-economic deprivation is a relevant factor for modifying the sentence, ensuring that access to justice and liberty do not become illusory for indigent persons. (Para 6.2, 6.3, 6.7)
(B) Criminal Law - Conviction - Where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is detailed and no manifest perversity or illegality is found, the conviction is liable to be maintained in appellate jurisdiction. (Para 6.1)
Issues: Whether the sentence of the appellants should be reduced considering their socio-economic background and inability to furnish bail bonds despite the grant of bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of prosecution case and trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on indigence and request for leniency. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. affirmation of conviction based on evidence. (Para 6) |
| 4. sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
Judgment
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. assailing the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.09/2019, whereby the appellants in both the appeals were held guilty for offences under Sections 341, 323/34, 394/34, 397/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and were sentenced accordingly. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, emanate from the same Sessions Case, and involve common questions of fact and law, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. The sentences awarded by the learned trial Court are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
| Offence | Sentence Awarded |
|---|---|
| Section 341 IPC | 1 Month Simple Imprisonment |
| Section 323/34 IPC | 1 Year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default further 1 Month S.I. |
| Section 394/34 IPC | 10 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default further 3 Months S.I. |
| Section 397/34 IPC | 7 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default further 2 Months S.I. |
| Section 4/25 Arms Act | 1 Year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default further 1 Month S.I. |
All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.09.2018 the complainant submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Sarada alleging that at about 5:00 p.m., while proceeding on his scooty towards Palodara after taking delivery from Sagtada Showroom, and upon reaching ahead of Village Kejad near Vishnu Kudi, one black Apache motorcycle carrying three persons approached from behind. It was alleged that the said persons intercepted his scooty, assaulted him by kicks and fists, and one amongst them brandished a sword. Thereafter, cash amounting to Rs.50,000/- was allegedly removed from his pocket. It was further alleged that his Vivo mobile phone and other articles were also taken away. On the basis of the said report, FIR No.185/2018 came to be registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.
3.1.The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 341, 323/34, 394/34, 397/34 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited twenty-nine documents. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the allegations were denied.
3.2.Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2020 convicted the appellants and sentenced them in the manner noticed hereinabove. Hence the instant criminal appeals.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri Amardeep Lamba appointed through the Legal Services Authorities, submitted that the appellants belong to an economically deprived and socially backward section residing in a tribal area. It was urged that though the appellants were granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2024 and 21.11.2020 during pendency of the appeals, they remained unable to furnish bail bonds solely on account of indigence and financial incapacity. It was further contended that they have no criminal antecedents, belong to poor strata of society, and have already undergone substantial hardship. Learned counsel fairly submitted that instead of pressing the challenge to conviction on merits, the appellants would be satisfied if leniency is shown in the matter of sentence and they are released on personal bonds.
5.Learned
