Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhala Ram vs State on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 349/2002
Bhala Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/04/2022
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
06.11.1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending
since the year 2002.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 14.05.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track), Balotra in Criminal Appeal No.36/2002, whereby the
judgment dated 13.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Regular Criminal Case
No.432/1998, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 279 IPC
and was sentenced to undergo one month S.I.; under Section
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:29:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-349/2002]
304A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine
of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to
undergo further one month S.I.; under Section 187 of M.V. Act,
he was sentenced to undergo one month S.I. and under Section
184 of M.V. Act, he was sentenced to undergo 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 11.06.2002.
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
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:29:53 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-349/2002]
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
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
Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 187 & 184 of M.V. Act, 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.
59-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
