IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.369/1999. Ratiram & Others Vs. Stateof Rajasthan. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Anil Jain for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Kumar P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 15.5.1999 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2 Alwar in Cr.Appeal No.10/99 & 9/99 whereby he upheld the judgment and order dated 9.6.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in Cr.Case No.18/83, but maintained the conviction of petitioners and modified. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and ..2.. order dated 19.5.1999 passed by Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar in Cr.Appeal No. 10/99 & 9/99 whereby he upheld the judgment and order dated 9.6.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in Cr.Case No.18/83, but maintained the conviction of petitioners and modified the sentence as under:- Accused Rati Ram, Smt.Sarbati & Lali:- Under Section 326/149 IPC 3 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 2 years R.I with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month S.I. Under Section 32/149 IPC 3 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 1 year R.I with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days S.I. Under Section 324/149 IPC 3 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 6 months S.I. ..3.. Under Section 147 & 148 IPC sentenced to 3 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 6 months. Accused Ram Niwas & Leela:- Under Section 326/149 IPC they have been sentenced for 6 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 2 years R.I with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month S.I. Under Section 325/149 IPC 6 months Simple Imprisonment instead of 1 year R.I with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days S.I. Under Section 324/149, 323/149, 147 & 148 IPC 3 months, 6 months, 3 months and 6 months S.I respectively was maintained. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.1982 one Sonaram lodged a written ..4.. report has lodged a report at Police Station Kotkasim wherein it has been alleged that there is dispute of Dol of the fields between him and Smt.Lali widow of Richpal. In the morning of 22.10.1982 he got the field measured through Patwari and found the Doll in correct measurement but Leela etc. had cut down the Dol, at that time his wife Mankaur brought tea for him. It was further alleged that in the day at 1 P.M his wife was coming to the house, in the way, the accused persons armed with lathi, Farsi Kulhadi etc met her and started giving beating. When complainant Sona Ram, his brother and Smt.Sansar wife of his son went to rescue her, the accused started giving them beating . It was alleged that Ramniwas inflicted Farsi on the head of the complainant, Ratiram inflicted lathi blow on his back. Gogram and Kelaram rushed to there and rescued ..5.. them. Upon the aforesaid report, the police after investigation filed a challan before the Court of Addl.Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 147,148,149, 323, 324, 325, 326 & 307 IPC. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas for trial. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides discharged the accused petitioners from the offence under section 307 IPC and the matter was remanded back to the court of learned Magistrate for framing of charges under Sections 147, 148,149, 323, 324, 325, 326 IPC. The charges were read over rand explained to the accused petitioners who denied the charges and claimed trial. ..6.. Statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C who denied charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses and exhibited some documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 9.6.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above, against which the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl.Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar who vide his judgment and order dated 19.5.1999 rejected the appeal by upholding the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate and modified the the sentence as indicated above. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by ..7.. both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. Mr.Anil Jain Advocate appearing on behalf the petitioners without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, urged to this Court that there was a cross case in between complainant and the accused petitioners. He further urged that accused petitioner Sarbati and Lali are more than 90 years old while the accused petitioner Ram Niwas and Leela are about 50 years of old, and Accused Rati Ram, Ram Niwas and Smt.Leela have remained in judicial custody for 19 days while accused Smt.Lali & Smt.Sarbati remained judicial custody for 11 days, the occurrence took place on 22.10.1982 i.e. Approximately 26 years ago, he is facing trial since last 26 years which tantamount to mental agony. He ..8.. further urged to this Court that they are not habitual offenders, all are belongs to responsible family and it is first offence from their end, hence, a lenient view be taken and prays that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the petitioners, if not, the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. Lastly he urged to this Court that without going into the merit of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of court below. Mr.Piyush KIumar learned P.P has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, relied upon the ..9.. judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J 2061. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the ..10.. Court and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation”. Appeal dismissed.” In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it proper to send back the petitioners to jail. Since the petitioners have already remained in judicial custody for 11 & 19 days respectively, ends of justice would be met in case the petitioners are released for the period already undergone by him. I ..11.. maintain the fine awarded by the appellate cpirt which may be deposited as per direction of the trial court. This revision petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the court below is modified as indicated above. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k