Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6288 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 504/2003
Rana Ram S/o Amra Ram, resident of Dhorimanna, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.S.Choudhary, Sr.Advocate
Ms.Sampatti Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Arun Kumar, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/08/2023
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated
12.6.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur
in Cr.Appeal No.63/1999 whereby the judgment dated 14.1.1997
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Jodhpur in Cr.Original Case No.101/88) was upheld.
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:
Conviction for offences Sentences under Sections: 279 IPC 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.
304-A IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-504/2003]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case
is pending against him since pursuant to lodging of the FIR in the
year 1988, therefore, without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentences already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further
submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated
3.7.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail)
Application No.504/2003.
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 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
(3 of 3) [CRLR-504/2003]
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 the
revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the
sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/
Sr.No.3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!