Jalandhar Singh vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 5936 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 416/2003

Jalandhar Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, R/o Chak Heerasinghwala, P.S. Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

(Presently lodged at District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia. 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 03.05.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.16/2002, whereby the

judgment dated 01.11.2002 passed by the Court of learned ACJM,

Sangriya in Criminal Case No.169/1993 convicting the revisionist-

petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the

offences under Section 3/25 of Arms Act for one year simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of

which, revisionist-petitioner was ordered to undergo further simple

imprisonment for one month.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that

the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 02.07.2003 passed in

(2 of 4) [CRLR-416/2003]

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail / Suspension of Sentence Petition

No.93/03.

From the perusal of the orders impugned, it is evident that

the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the

year 1993 and the present criminal revision petition has been

pending since the year 2003.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

revisionist-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present

case and the petitioner has been convicted without there being

any independent witness produced on behalf of the prosecution,

though, the recovery of alleged weapon was made in the broad

day light. Learned counsel further submitted that even the site

plan was not prepared properly. Learned counsel vehemently

submitted that the entire prosecution story is based on concocted

facts and the alleged recovery has been made in the absence of

independent witness, therefore, the case of the prosecution is

completely doubtful and conviction on these doubtful

circumstances cannot be upheld.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1993, 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 Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions

advanced 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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-416/2003]

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

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 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 3/25 of Arms Act, 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.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-416/2003]

All pending applications stand disposed of.

Record of the case be sent back to the learned Court below

forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 1-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)