Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash vs State on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Judge)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 347/2001
Prakash
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SG Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
26/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1994 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 26.06.2001 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.07/2000, whereby the
judgment dated 20.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case
No.471/1994, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 341,
323/34, 324 & 326 IPC and was sentenced as under:-
341 IPC : 15 days' S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 07 days' S.I.
323/34 IPC : 01 month's S.I and a fine of Rs.200/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 07 days' S.I.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:52:51 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-347/2001]
324 IPC : 03 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 15 days' S.I.
326 IPC : 03 years' S.I and a fine of Rs.5000/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo one month's S.I.
(All 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 29.06.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.72/2001.
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 finds that the alleged incident occurred at the
spur of moment and, therefore, there is a lack of intention or
planning on the part of the accused, more so, the trial court has
failed to examine any independent witness and that no weapon
was recovered from the place of incident.
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
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:52:51 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-347/2001]
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
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 offences under
Sections 341, 323/34, 324 & 326 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.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
73-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
