Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Himmat Singh vs State on 26 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 406/2011
Himmat Singh son of Gopal Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of
Rabcha, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
26/08/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2007.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 29.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bali, District Pali in Criminal Appeal No.20/2007, whereby the
judgment dated 23.06.2007 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Desuri, District Pali in Criminal Regular Case
No.280/1993, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 279 IPC
and was sentenced to undergo 06 months' S.I., under Section 337
IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 06 months' S.I., under Section
338 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 06 months' S.I. and under
Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 02 years' S.I.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-406/2011]
3. 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 24.05.2011
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.111/2011.
4. 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.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
6. 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..."
(3 of 3) [CRLR-406/2011]
7. 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, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC, the sentence awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged accordingly.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
203-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
