Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Lal vs State on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-136/2004]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 136/2004
Hari Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
01/07/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
2000 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the age of
the petitioner is about 80 years,
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 09.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.76/2002 whereby the
judgment dated 14.08.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh in Criminal
Regular Case No.107/2000 convicting the revisionist-petitioner
was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and was sentenced as under:-
Sections Sentence
279 IPC Three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default
(Downloaded on 01/07/2022 at 08:46:25 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-136/2004]
of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo
further one month's S.I.
304-A IPC One year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of which, he was ordered to undergo
further one month's 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 11.03.2004
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.21/2004.
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 01/07/2022 at 08:46:25 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-136/2004]
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 304A & 279 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 stand discharged
accordingly.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
167-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
