Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Singh vs State on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 171/1999
Bheru Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
08/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant,abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred on
17.10.1985 and the present criminal revision has been pending
since the year 1999.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 03.03.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.118/96, whereby the
judgment dated 28.10.93 passed by the learned Additional
Munshif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hanumangarh in Regular
Criminal Case No.432/88, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was
upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under
Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year S.I.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:23:10 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-171/1999]
and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of which, he was
ordered to undergo further one month S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.04.1999
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.53/1999.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. This Court is conscious of the 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 Hon'ble 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
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:23:10 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-171/1999]
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Section 304--A IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
29-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
