Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chatar Prakash @ Prakash vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22487) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22487]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 155/1995
Chatar Prakash @ Prakash S/o Gopalal Vaishnav, R/o Badipole,
outside City Palace, Udaipur
(Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Kawadia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal appeal, a challenge has been
made to the order dated 17.04.1995 passed by the learned Session
Judge, District Udaipur, in Session Case No.11/1992 whereby the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine
Sec. 307 IPC 4 years’ RI Rs.400/- 3 months’ SI
Sec. 324 IPC 1 year RI Rs.100/- 1 month SI
Sec. 326 IPC 3 years’ RI Rs.300/- 2 months’ SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 06.11.1991, an
FIR was lodged at concerned Police Station on an oral report by injured-
complainant Vinod Dodeja to the effect that on 05.11.1991, while he
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22487] (2 of 4) [CRLA-155/1995]
along with other individuals was bursting crackers in his locality, upon
which Gopalal Vaishnav (father of the appellant) objected, resulting in a
scuffle. Subsequently, the appellant arrived with a sword and inflicted
injuries on Vinod Dodeja. On the basis of said report, the police
registered a case under Sections 307/34 IPC against both the appellant
and his father and commenced the investigation. However, after
thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both of them, but
Gopal Vaishnav (father of the appellant) was discharged by the
concerned court. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
as many as 09 witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of
their case. The accused-appellant was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and claimed
trial. In defence, two witnesses were examined.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for Sections 307,
324 & 326 of IPC vide judgment dated 17.04.1995. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Dilip Kawadia, representing the appellant, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned courts below, but at the
same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1991.
The accused-appellant had remained in judicial custody for about
46 days. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a
very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. The
accused-appellant was aged about 18 years in 1991 at the time of
incident and the accused-appellant is aged about 52 years at present
and has been facing trial since the year 1991 and he has languished in
jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing
his sentence.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22487] (3 of 4) [CRLA-155/1995]
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant but does not refute the fact that the appellant
has remained behind the bars for about 46 days and except the present
one, no other case has been registered against him.
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and
after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this
court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant
remained in jail for some time. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das
Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC
648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the
appellant, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the appellant has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is four
years as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go
through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the appellant has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.04.1995 passed
by the learned Session Judge, District Udaipur, in Session Case
No.11/1992 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the
learned trial court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has
undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the
interest of justice. The fine amount imposed by the trial court is hereby
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22487] (4 of 4) [CRLA-155/1995]
maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not
already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is granted to
the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In
default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s
simple imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender.
His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The criminal appeal is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the court below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
4-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:33:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)