Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sajia vs State on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-497/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 497/1993
Sajia
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Kinjal Purohit, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
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. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be
acquitted under Section 325/34 IPC and he may be set at
liberty."
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
01.11.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:02:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-497/1993]
Sessions Case No.34/91 whereby the appellant was convicted for
the offence under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo
five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, default of payment of which
he was ordered to further undergo fifteen days' S.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 16.12.1993 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail No.467/1993.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased and the
accused were under the influence of alcohol. The alleged incident
was at the spur of moment and who infrlicted the fatal injury was
not clear.
7. 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.
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:-
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
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:02:53 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-497/1993]
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 appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
the appellant's conviction under Section 325/34 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.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
146-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
