Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madanlal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:42540) on 6 December, 2023
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JD:42540]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 961/2002
Madanlal son of Gokul Ji Regar resident of Mohi Police Station
Rajnagar District Rajsamand.
(AT PRESENT LODGED IN DISTRICT JAIL RAJSAMAND)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
06/12/2023
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1997 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year
2002.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 10.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.9/2002, whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
14.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in
Case No.155/1997 was upheld. The revisionist-petitioner was
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section 279 IPC:
Six months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of which, he was further
ordered to undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment.
[2023:RJ-JD:42540] (2 of 3) [CRLR-961/2002]
Section 304A_IPC:
One year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of which, he was
further ordered to undergo one month's simple
imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that
the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.10.2002
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Sus. Of Sentence Application
No.219/2002.
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-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
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
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
[2023:RJ-JD:42540] (3 of 3) [CRLR-961/2002]
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 petitioner
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and
304A IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period
already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court
is maintained. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His
bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
7-AK Chouhan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
