Amba Lal vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 5933 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 454/2003

Amba Lal Son of Udai Ram, by caste Gayari, R/o Bala Guda, P.S. Pipaliya Mandi, M.P.

(At present lodged at District Jail Pratapgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Pravin Vyas.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Salim Khan, P.P.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                          Order

16/08/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 21.05.2003 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge,

Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2002 whereby the judgment

dated 04.12.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.91/1997 was upheld. The

petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

The conviction awarded by the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class was reduced from one year S.I. to six

months S.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of

which, petitioner was ordered to undergo further 15 days' S.I. by

the Court of learned Sessions Judge.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has been implicated in a false case. Learned counsel

submitted that petitioner has been convicted by the Courts below

by relying upon the evidence of Modi Ram (father of the

deceased), ignoring the fact that he had made improvements in

(2 of 3) [CRLR-454/2003]

his testimony from the earlier version and therefore, his evidence

was not worthy of credence. Attention of the Court was also drawn

towards the statements D.W.-1 Ramchandra, who has clearly

stated that the deceased fell down on a hard surface while playing

and suffered injuries, which resulted in her death. Learned counsel

submitted that trial court as well as appellate court has completely

overlooked the evidence available on record which has resulted in

gross miscarriage of justice.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1997, therefore, 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.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submitted

that sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 27.05.2003 passed in

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.454/2003.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe 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

(3 of 3) [CRLR-454/2003]

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..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping

in view the limited prayer made on behalf of revisionist-petitioner,

the present petition is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner

for the offences under Section 304-A 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 stands

discharged accordingly.

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the case

be sent back to the learned Court below forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 5-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)