Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kurda Ram And Anr vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:38561) on 18 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:38561]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 997/2003
1. Kurda Ram S/o Shri Harchand Ram, resident of Village
Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh.
2. Smt. Khajani Devi w/o Kurda Ram, resident of village
Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.L. Mothsra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. R.S. Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order 18/09/2024 Qua petitioner No.1
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 has expired and proceedings qua him stands abated.
2. In view of the submission made, Revision petition qua petitioner No.1 is dismissed as having been abated. Qua petitioner No.2.
1. Under challenge herein is an Appellate Court judgment dated 24.09.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadara, in Criminal Appeal No.66/2002, whereby the judgment dated 18.04.2002, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadara, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.264/1999 convicting the revisionist-petitioner, was upheld. The (Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:10:31 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:38561] (2 of 4) [CRLR-997/2003] petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned below:
Offence Sentence Fine 341 IPC -- Rs.300/- (in default 1 month S.I.) 323/34 IPC 6 Months SI Rs.200/- (in default 1 month S.I.) 324 IPC 1 year RI ----- 325/34 IPC 2 years RI Rs.500/- (in default 2 month S.I.) 326 IPC 5 years RI Rs.2,000/- (in default 6 month S.I.)
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 03.11.2003, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.264/2003.
3. Given the lapse of time caused by pendency of the instant revision petition, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes a limited submission that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by her.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State contends that learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
5. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case filed.
6. From the record, it is borne out that the incident took place in the year 1999. The revision petition pertains to the year 2003. The petitioner has already suffered the pangs protracted litigation for around 25 years. Further, he has already undergone sentence for a period of 2 months. Petitioner, at the time of incident, was (Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:10:31 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:38561] (3 of 4) [CRLR-997/2003] aged about 40 years old and now she is 65 years old senior citizen. Petitioner is stated to be a poor person. His antecedents are clean.
7. Insofar as, upholding of sentence at this stage, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this point of time to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
8. In this context, reference may be had to judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
9. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the (Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:10:31 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:38561] (4 of 4) [CRLR-997/2003] sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by her. Order of payment of fine and so also consequences in default thereof, however, are maintained.
10. The impugned order of sentence thus stands modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. The petitioner is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged in due course.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 8-DhananjayS/-
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:10:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)