Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Khan vs State on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-104/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 104/2001
Babu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Mehta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK. Bhati, PP.
Mr. Sikander Khan.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
11/05/2022
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 2001.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 08.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Deedwana, District Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.88/99 (32/96)
whereby the judgment dated 02.11.1996 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnun in
Criminal Case No.366/93 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was
upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section
498A IPC and was sentenced to undergo one years' S.I. and a fine
(Downloaded on 13/05/2022 at 08:40:30 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-104/2001]
of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which, he was ordered to
undergo further one month's S.I. and under Section 406 IPC, the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one years' S.I.
and a fine of Rs.400/- in default of payment of which, he was
ordered to undergo further one month's S.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 11.10.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence)
Application No.20/2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
private respondent submits that a compromise was entered into
the parties, they divorced each other and both the parties
remarried thereafter.
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. 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
(Downloaded on 13/05/2022 at 08:40:30 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-104/2001]
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. 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 offence under
Sections 498A and 406 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.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
44-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
