HOMA & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 402 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.7.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Cr. Appeal NO.14/97 by which the learned Judge upheld the judgment dated 6.3.1997 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Cr. Case No.895/1996 by which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

(2.) At the threshold the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the finding of conviction of the petitioners given by the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court but submit that incident took place on 5.3.1996 for allegation that upon complaint of Lemba to the effect that on 4.3.1996 when he and his wife and his children were sleeping in the evening at about 7 to 8 p.m. all the accused petitioners alongwith Hiteshwar and Chandra came there and assaulted them by Lathis and Dhariyas and due to the said incident, the complainant party received injuries. Upon the aforesaid information, the FIR was registered at Police Station Bichhiwada, District Dungarpur for offence under Section s 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 325/149 IPC and after investigation challan was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur from where case was transferred to the court of Civil Judge(JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur and the said court after trail convicted the accused petitioners for aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 6.3.1997. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and the said appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.7.1997 and sent the petitioners to the Jail.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that incident took place in the year 1996 and nearabout 18 years have passed, therefore, while taking the lenient view the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the already undergone because they remained in custody for more than 2 years. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards the judgment Ram Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,2007 1 CrLR 250 and submits that petitioners may be granted benefit of probation because they are poor villagers.