Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju Alias Rajkumar And Ors vs State on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-658/2002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 658/2002
Raju Alias Rajkumar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/07/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2002.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 07.08.2002 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in criminal appeal No.03/2001
whereby the judgment dated 08.03.2001 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sri Ganganagar in criminal appeal
No.109/1995 convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld.
The petitioners were convicted for the offences under Sections
323/34 & 324 IPC and were sentenced to undergo three months'
R.I. and a fine of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of which,
they were ordered to undergo further ten days R.I. and under
Section 324 IPC, the petitioners were convicted and were
sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.700/- each,
(Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:43:20 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-658/2002]
in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further one month's days R.I. respectively. Vide order dated
07.08.2002, the learned appellate court has affirmed the order of
learned trial court and the petitioners were acquitted for the
offience under Section 323/34 IPC and for the offence under
Section 324 IPC the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to
undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.700/- each, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further one
month's days R.I.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
19.08.2002 passed in S.B. Criminal (SOS) Bail Application
No.147/2002.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
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
(Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:43:20 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-658/2002]
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..."
7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under
Section 324 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
21-/Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
