Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladu Ram And Anr vs State on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-157/2002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 157/2002
Ladu Ram And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
29/06/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1998 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 28.02.2002 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal
No.33/2000, whereby the judgment dated 21.11.2000 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in Criminal Regular Case
No.8/99, convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The
petitioners were convicted for the offences under Sections 341,
323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as
under :-
Section 341 IPC:- A fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
which further undergo 10 days S.I. (Each)
(Downloaded on 30/06/2022 at 08:35:11 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-157/2002]
Section 323 IPC:- Two months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of which further undergo 15 days S.I.
Section 325 read with 34 IPC:- Six months' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of which further undergo one
months' S.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
03.04.2002 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.34/2002.
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
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
(Downloaded on 30/06/2022 at 08:35:11 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-157/2002]
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 offences under
Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 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 below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
73-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
