Rajasthan High Court
Laxminarayan And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:6805) on 7 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:6805]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 396/2005
1. Laxminarayan S/o Hajarilal,
2. Badrilal S/o Hajarilal,
3. Surgyan S/o Gopal,
4. Suresh S/o Surgyan,
5. Laddu S/o Hajari,
6. Jugal S/o Hajari,
7. Pappu S/o Hajari,
8. Fintu alias Pintu S/o Hajari,
9. Battilal S/o Ramprasad,
10. Ramjilal S/o Ramprasad,
11. Ramkaran S/o Hajari,
12. Ram Singh S/o Heeralal,
13. Nabbu S/o Badri,
14. Murari S/o Ramkaran,
15. Ramswaroop S/o Shyonarayan,
16. Smt. Manbhar W/o Raghuveer,
17. Smt. Ramkanya W/o Laddulal,
18. Smt. Kadi W/o Kalu D/o Heeralal,
19. Smt. Prem W/o Battilal,
20. Smt. Keshanti W/o Ram Singh,
All residents of Village Bhind, Police Station Khandar, District
Sawai Madhopur.
Accused-Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
[2024:RJ-JP:6805] (2 of 4) [CRLR-396/2005]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
07/02/2024
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
2002 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year
2005.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.04.2005
passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Cases) & Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions
Case No.43/2003 (31/2003), whereby the learned Sessions Court
has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as under:-
Section 147 of N.I. Act:
Three months' simple imprisonment each
Section 332/149 IPC:
Three months' simple imprisonment each
Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act:
Three months' simple imprisonment each alongwith a fine of
Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further
ordered to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment each.
They have been convicted for the offences under Sections
147 & 332/149 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act but have been granted benefit of Section
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that
the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner Nos.1 to 15
[2024:RJ-JP:6805] (3 of 4) [CRLR-396/2005]
were suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
03.05.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of
Sentence Application No.98/2005.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner Nos.1 to 15 may be substituted with the
period of sentence already undergone by them. Learned counsel
for the revisionist-petitioners also submits that he does not press
the present criminal revision petition qua revisionist-petitioner
Nos.16 to 20.
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
will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone..."
[2024:RJ-JP:6805] (4 of 4) [CRLR-396/2005]
7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present criminal revision petition qua petitioner Nos.1 to
15 is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the
petitioner Nos.1 to 15 for the offences under Sections 147 &
332/149 IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, the sentences awarded to petitioner Nos.1 to
15 are reduced to the period already undergone by them and
imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner
Nos.1 to 15 are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
8. The criminal revision petition qua petitioners No.16 to 20 is
dismissed as not pressed.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
10-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
