Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satnam Singh And Anr vs State on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Judge)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 460/2001
Satnam Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
26/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1996 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 09.08.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.22/99 (85/97),
whereby the judgment dated 19.08.1997 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh in
Criminal Original Case No.123/1996, convicting the revisionist-
petitioners was upheld. The petitioners were convicted for the
offences under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 & 326/34 IPC and
were sentenced as under:- (all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently)
341 IPC : 01 month's SI
323/34 IPC : 01 month's SI
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:52:54 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-460/2001]
325/34 IPC : 06 months' SI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 01 month's SI.
326/34 IPC : 01 year's S.I and a fine of Rs.1000/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 02 months' SI.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.08.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.460/2001.
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-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
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
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:52:54 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-460/2001]
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..."
7. 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, 323/34, 325/34 & 326/34 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.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
78-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
