Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nimba Ram And Anr vs State on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 86/1999
1. Nimba Ram
2. Kodu Ram
Both sons of Jora Ram, by caste Jat, R/o Jalamsar, Tehsil
Dungargarh, District Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Kant Verma with
Mr. Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : M.S. Bhati, PP
Mr. Pritam Solanki
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
31.08.1981 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 10.02.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratangarh in Criminal Appeal No.21/92, whereby the judgment
dated 02.04.1985 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ratangarh in Criminal Case No.615/83, convicting the
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:23:48 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-86/1999]
revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioners were convicted
for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo
one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
which, they were ordered to undergo further two months S.I.; for
the offence under Section 324 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced
to undergo six months S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further one
months S.I.; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, the
petitioners were sentenced to undergo one month S.I. and a fine
of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to
undergo further 15 days S.I. and for the offence under Section
447 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo two months
S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
17.02.1999 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.33/1999.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
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)
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:23:48 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-86/1999]
"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..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 326, 324, 323 & 447 IPC, the sentence awarded to them
is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
26-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
