Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Man Singh vs State on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-335/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 335/1993
Man Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sapna Vaishnav (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
1. In 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 Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
2. Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae
to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellant under the
free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. Her remuneration shall be paid by
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
3. The present case initially was filed as criminal revision
petition No.276/1993. However, vide order dated 02.09.1993
passed by Hon'ble Court, the same was ordered to be treated as
criminal appeal instead of criminal revision petition.
4. The present case has been originally preferred, claiming the
following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this revision petition may be
allowed and Judgment and conviction under revision may be
(Downloaded on 27/04/2022 at 08:19:19 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-335/1993]
set aside or in the alternatively the petitioner may be given
the benefit of probation of Offenders Act."
5. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1978 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1993.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal, which was originally filed as a criminal revision petition as
stated hereinabove, has been preferred against the impugned
judgment dated 19.08.1993 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.4/92 preferred against the
judgment dated 13.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Original Case
No.446/87. Vide the impugned judgment dated 19.08.1993,
though the judgment of the learned trial court to the extent of
conviction under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC was affirmed, the
same was modified to the extent that after sentencing the
appellant under Section 304-A IPC, holding that sentencing him
for the offence under Section 279 IPC is not proper. Vide the
judgment of the learned Sessions Court, for the offence under
Section 304-A IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo three
months R.I. along with a fine of Rs.500/- default in payment of
which he was to further undergo one months of R.I.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 02.09.1993 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail No.331/93.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant
(Downloaded on 27/04/2022 at 08:19:19 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-335/1993]
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. 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
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
11. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
the appellant's conviction under Sections 304-A of IPC, as above,
the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
(Downloaded on 27/04/2022 at 08:19:19 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-335/1993]
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
67-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
