Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyapal vs State on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 38/1999
Satyapal
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1991 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 1999.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 11.01.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.181/98 (128/95)
whereby the judgment dated 28.09.1995 passed by learned Civil
Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga in Criminal Regular Case No.822/92,
convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was
convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced
to undergo as under:-
304-A IPC : 02 years RI, fine of Rs.500/-
in default to further undergo
02 months RI.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:49:21 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-38/1999]
3. 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 17.02.1999
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No.13/1999.
4. 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.
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
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..."
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:49:21 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-38/1999]
7. 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
Section 304-A 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.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
47-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
