Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-593/2000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 593/2000
Om Prakash
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/05/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1993 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2000.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 02.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.9/1999 whereby the
judgment dated 12.12.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.362/1993
convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was
convicted for the offences under Sections 326 & 324 IPC and was
sentenced as under:- (sentences to run concurrently)
(Downloaded on 05/05/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-593/2000]
326 IPC : 02 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.400/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 15 days imprisonment.
324 IPC : 01 years R.I.
4. 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 22.01.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail No.164/2000.
5. 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.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. The report of
learned PP does not indicate death of the revisionist-petitioner.
(The report so submitted is taken on record).
7. 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 05/05/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-593/2000]
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..."
8. 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 326 & 324 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.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
56-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
