Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash @ Omiya vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 528/1993
Om Prakash
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma.
Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/06/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be
allowed/accepted, impugned judgment dated 17.12.1993 may
be set aside and appellant may be acquitted of the charges
leveled against him, as even it has been admitted in para No.6
of the judgment that the recovery of knife is not proved. "
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1993.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
17.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.26/1993 whereby the appellant was
(Downloaded on 30/06/2022 at 08:19:45 PM)
(2 of 3)
convicted for the offences under Section 326 and 324 IPC as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
326 IPC One year and six months' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to
further undergo three months' R.I.
324 IPC Six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment of fine to further undergo
three months' R.I.
5. 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 22.12.1993 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.495/1993.
6. 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.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. 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."
(Downloaded on 30/06/2022 at 08:19:45 PM)
(3 of 3)
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. 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 Sections 326 and 324 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.
13-weekly-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
