Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Radhey Shyam vs State on 28 July, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1196/2014

Radhey Shyam

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1357/2011 Sanjay Kumar

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 236/2012 Raju @ Rajia

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Rastogi Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

28/07/2022

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1196/2014:

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

2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 2014.

(2 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.17/2003,

whereby the judgment dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in

Criminal Original Case No.377/2002, convicting the revisionist-

petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced

as under:- (sentences to run concurrently)

454 IPC: 02 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

380 IPC: 02 years' S.I and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

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 26.11.2014

passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Bail No.393/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the articles

recovered and the testimony do not corroborate and grave

suspicion is created by the deposition made by the witnesses

regarding the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to such

suspicion the prosecution could not prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

                                               (3 of 9)                    [CRLR-1196/2014]


6.     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.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. On perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as

recovered articles, it seems that there is a discrepancy in the story

of the prosecution.

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:-

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..."

(4 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

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 454 & 380 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 court below be sent back forthwith.

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1357/2011:

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

2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 2011.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.15/2003,

whereby the judgment dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in

Criminal Original Case No.377/2002, convicting the revisionist-

petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced

as under:- (sentences to run concurrently)

454 IPC: 02 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

(5 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

380 IPC: 02 years' S.I and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

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 22.12.2011

passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Bail No.375/2011.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the articles

recovered and the testimony do not corroborate and grave

suspicion is created by the deposition made by the witnesses

regarding the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to such

suspicion the prosecution could not prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

6. 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.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. On perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as

recovered articles, it seems that there is a discrepancy in the story

of the prosecution.

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:-

(6 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

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 454 & 380 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 court below be sent back forthwith.

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 236/2012:

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

2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 2012.

(7 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.17/2003,

whereby the judgment dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in

Criminal Original Case No.377/2002, convicting the revisionist-

petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced

as under:- (sentences to run concurrently)

454 IPC: 02 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

380 IPC: 02 years' S.I and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of

payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one

month's S.I.

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 09.04.2012

passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Bail No.67/2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the articles

recovered and the testimony do not corroborate and grave

suspicion is created by the deposition made by the witnesses

regarding the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to such

suspicion the prosecution could not prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

                                               (8 of 9)                    [CRLR-1196/2014]


6.     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.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. On perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as

recovered articles, it seems that there is a discrepancy in the story

of the prosecution.

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:-

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..."

(9 of 9) [CRLR-1196/2014]

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 454 & 380 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced

to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail.