Rajasthan High Court
Hari Narain vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:7776) on 14 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:7776]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 592/2004
Hari Narain S/o Shri Nathu Lal, resident of Village Dharoniya,
Police Station Raipur, District Jhalawar.
(Petitioner in Central Jail, Jhalawar)
---Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Meena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
14/02/2024
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year
2004.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 03.03.2004 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge,
Jhalawar, Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.51/2003, whereby, the
learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the
accused-petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.07.2001 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pidawa, District Jhalawar in Criminal Case
No.51/1995, whereby, the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Section 279 IPC :
Six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further
ordered to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JP:7776] (2 of 3) [CRLR-592/2004]
Section 337 IPC :
Six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further
ordered to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.
Section 338 IPC :
One year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further
ordered to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.
Section 304A IPC :
Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further
ordered to undergo six months' rigorous 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 04.01.2005
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence)
Application No.130/2004.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however,
makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already
remained in custody for a period of 6 months and 14 days,
without making any interference on merits/conviction, the
sentences 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
[2024:RJ-JP:7776] (3 of 3) [CRLR-592/2004]
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..."
7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 279, 337,338 & 304A IPC, the sentences awarded to him
are 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
12-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
