Parwat Singh vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 6289 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 458/2003

Parwat Singh S/o Nug Singh, resident of Jinjinyala, P.S. Balaser,
Phalodi, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Prithvi Raj Singh Balot.
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

13.9.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi in

Cr.Appeal No.1A/2002 whereby the judgment dated 2.3.2002

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in

Cr.Original Case No.927/97 was upheld.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences                              Sentences
under Sections:
279 IPC             1 month's rigorous imprisonment
304-A IPC           2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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

(2 of 3) [CRLR-458/2003]

year 1997, 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

21.5.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail)

Application No.1642/2003.

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 of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

(3 of 3) [CRLR-458/2003]

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.2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)