Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sawant Singh vs State on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 194/2000
Sawant Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
27/04/2022
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 present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision
petition may kindly be allowed, judgments of conviction and
sentence passed by the courts below may kindly be quashed and
set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted for the aforesaid
charges.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which may be deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred on
15.06.1983 and the present criminal revision has been pending
since the year 2000.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:48:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-194/2000]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
trial court vide judgment dated 16.07.1996 convicted the present
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC; for
the offence under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner was ordered to
undergo three months S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- and for the
offence under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was ordered to
undergo one year S.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-; with the further
stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to
undergo one month further S.I.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon
an appeal being filed against the impugned judgment of the
learned trial court, though the same was partly allowed by the
learned appellate court vide its judgment dated 08.05.2000, while
modifying the impugned judgment of the learned trial court only
to the extent that for the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was to undergo six months S.I.;
but the remaining part of the impugned judgment of the learned
trial court was upheld.
6. 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 23.06.2000.
7. 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.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:48:53 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-194/2000]
9. 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..."
10. 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 of 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.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
45-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
