Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Karan And Ors vs State on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 462/2009
Ram Karan And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. RS Gill
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2009.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 18.04.2009 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal
No.94/08, whereby the judgment dated 04.12.2004 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sridungargarh, Bikaner in
criminal case no.65/99 convicting the revisionist-petitioners was
upheld. The petitioners were convicted for the offences under
Sections 341, 342, 323/149, 325/149 & 148 of IPC and they were
sentenced as under :-
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:18 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-462/2009]
Section 148 IPC:- Two months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
15 days' S.I. (each).
Section 323/149 IPC:- One year' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
one months' S.I. (each).
Section 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
six months' S.I. (each).
Section 341 IPC:- One month' S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- in
default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further
seven days' S.I. (each).
Section 342 IPC:- Two months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- 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
24.04.2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
(Suspension of Sentence) No.144/2009.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:18 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-462/2009]
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
Sections 341, 342, 323/149, 325/149 & 148 of IPC, as above, the
sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:18 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-462/2009]
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.
171-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
