Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladu Lal @ Hansraj vs State on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-657/2002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 657/2002
Ladu Lal @ Hansraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
27/07/2022
1. None appears for the appellant despite specific note in the
cause-list that old matters shall not be adjourned.
2. Mr. Pawan Bharti, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to
argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellant under the
free legal aid scheme. His remuneration shall be paid by the
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1997 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2002.
4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 11.07.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
Gulabpura District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.19/2001,
whereby the judgment dated 19.07.2001 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura in Criminal Case
No.119/1997, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:37:44 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-657/2002]
sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court was
modified by learned appellate court and the petitioner was
convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and
was sentenced as under:- (All sentences will run concurrently).
Sections Sentence
279 IPC One month's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of which he was
ordered to undergo further
seven days' S.I.
304-A IPC Six month's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of which he was
ordered to undergo further one
month's S.I.
5. The case summary chart prepared and furnished by learned
Amicus Curiae is taken on record.
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 19.08.2002
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.146/2002.
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.
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:-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:37:44 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-657/2002]
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 and 304-A 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.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
39-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
