KOJU KHAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 23.10.02 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2000, affirming the judgment and order dated 27.3.98 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar in Criminal Case No. 279/93, whereby the accused Koju Khan and Sattar Khan were convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_135_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016_1.html</FRM>

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused petitioners do 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 more than 23 years have lapsed since the occurrence of the incident. It is submitted that at the time of occurrence accused Koju Khan and Sattar Khan were 23 years and 20 years of age respectively and by now they have already settled in their life and have indulged in commission of any offences subsequently. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the gravity of charges proved, the lapse of time, the age of the accused petitioners and other relevant aspects, it would be appropriate to send them behind the bars at this stage. Learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court may be increased as considering reasonable by this Court and may be directed to be paid to the victim-Lal Khan, who has suffered grievous hurt by dangerous weapon.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioners and submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court affirmed by the Appellate Court for the charges proved does warrant any interference by this Court.