Ram Lal vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 8837 Raj

                                         (1 of 3)                  [CRLA-381/1994]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 381/1994

Ram Lal
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Ashok Upadhayay
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                 Judgment

06/07/2022

1.    This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred claiming the following reliefs:


     "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may
     kindly be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the
     charges leveled against him."


2.    The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1992 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1994.

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal

Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

28.07.1994 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No.48/93, whereby the appellant

was convicted for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and

sentenced to undergo two years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in




                     (Downloaded on 07/07/2022 at 08:34:36 PM)
                                                 (2 of 3)                    [CRLA-381/1994]


default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo

two months' S.I.

4.     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 12.08.1994 passed in S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No.376/1994.

5.     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

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
     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


                           (Downloaded on 07/07/2022 at 08:34:36 PM)
                                                                              (3 of 3)                [CRLA-381/1994]

                                        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 appellant,

                                   and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the

                                   present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining

                                   the appellant's conviction under Section 498-A 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.


                                   9.     All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the

                                   learned court below be sent back forthwith.



                                                                  (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

60-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)