Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam vs State on 19 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-330/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 330/2001
Ghanshyam
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
19/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2001.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 16.06.2001 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge,
Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.34/2001 whereby the judgment
dated 31.03.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.70/99 convicting
the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted
for the offences under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to
undergo three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further fifteen days
S.I. and for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner
was convicted and sentenced to undergo nine months' R.I. and a
fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:18:34 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-330/2001]
to undergo further one months' S.I. (both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently).
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 20.06.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.66/2001.
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
(Downloaded on 24/05/2022 at 08:18:34 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-330/2001]
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
petitioner, 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 279 & 304-A, 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 below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
54-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
