Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Nath And Ors vs State on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1372/2017
1. Bhanwar Nath S/o Aadunath, B/c Sidh R/o Lakhansar
2. Girdhari Nath S/o Aadunath, B/c Sidh R/o Lakhansar
3. Imarat Nath S/o Aadunath, B/c Sidh R/o Lakhansar
4. Lal Nath S/o Rawat Nath, B/c Sidh R/o Lakhansar
5. Sultan Nath S/o Rawat Nath, B/c Sidh R/o Lakhansar
6. Mohan Nath @ Munna Nath S/o Rawat Nath, B/c Sidh All
R/o Lakhansar Tehsil Sri Doongargarh District Bikaner At
Present Lodged In District Jail Churu
----Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
24/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
2000 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2017.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratangarh, District Churu in Criminal appeal No.21/2015 whereby
the judgment dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Criminal
Case No.337/2001, convicting the revisionist-petitioners was
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:20 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2017]
upheld while amending / modifying the order of learned trial court
to the extent of conviction under Section 148 IPC instead of
Section 148/149 IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced
as under:-
Section Sentence
148 IPC Two year's S.I., and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further one month's S.I. (each).
341/149 IPC One month's S.I., and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further five days' S.I. (each).
326/149 IPC Three years S.I., and a fine of Rs.2000/- , in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further two months' S.I. (each).
325/149 IPC Two years S.I., and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further one month' S.I. (each).
324/149 IPC Two years S.I., and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further one month' S.I. (each).
323/149 IPC Six months' S.I., and a fine of Rs.1000/- , in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo
further 15 days' S.I. (each).
3. Learned counsel for the parties submits that there are cross
cases between the parties and since a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties, therefore, the Court may take a
lenient view while directing that the sentence awarded to the
present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period
of sentence already undergone by them.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
22.11.2017 passed in S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Revision)
No.364/2017.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:20 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2017]
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
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
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
petitioners, 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
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:20 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2017]
Sections 148, 341/149, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 & 323/149 of
IPC,, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period
already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They
need not surrender. Their 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.
172-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
