KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2002, affirming the judgment and order dated 2.11.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 251/1995, whereby while acquitting the accused Madan Singh and Surendra Singh of all the charges and acquitting the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 417, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 I.P.C., have convicted them for offences under Sections 324/34 and 325/34 and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_96_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016_1.html</FRM>

(2.) At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners does not want to press the petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Appellate Court, affirming the order passed by the Trial Court, convicting the accused-petitioners as aforesaid. However, learned Counsel submitted that there exists a land dispute between the parties and the complainant party tresspassed over the land comprising Khasra No. 113 in their possession and thus, the accused-petitioners have exercised their right to private defence. Learned Counsel submitted that taking into consideration the nature of accusation and the fact that more than 20 years have lapsed since the occurrence of the incident and therefore, it will not be appropriate to send the accused-petitioners behind the bars and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners behind the bars and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Hallu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 816 , wherein the incident was more than 30 years old, the Court reduced the sentence of two years imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to the period undergone.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for the charges proved, the order of punishment passed by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the petitioners are not found involved in commission of the offence subsequent to their conviction by the Trial Court as aforesaid.