Rajasthan High Court
Raju @ Rajendra vs State on 6 March, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 968/2004
Sanjay s/o Shri Khana, Resident of Panidhal, Police Station
Dablana, District Bundi (Raj.) (At present district jail Bundi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 919/2004
Raju @ Rajendra s/o Shri Ramkalyan, Resident of Chitwa Police
Station K. Paten, District Bundi (Raj.) (At present District Jail
Bundi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jagdish Singh
Mr.SK Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr.SS Mehla, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
06/03/2024
1. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year
2002 and the present criminal revisions are pending since the year
2004.
2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment
dated 25.08.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No.9/2003 & 5/2003, respectively,
whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of
conviction dated 11.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil
(2 of 3) [CRLR-968/2004]
Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case No.244/2002 and
sentenced as under:-
Section 224 IPC :
Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which,
they were further ordered to undergo three months'
simple imprisonment each.
Section 225 IPC :
Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which,
they were further ordered to undergo three months'
simple imprisonment each.
Section 120-B IPC :
Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which,
they were further ordered to undergo three months'
simple imprisonment each.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that
the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.12.2004
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.210/2004 and
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.198/2004, respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that the petitioner - Sanjay has
already remained in custody for a period of seven months and the
petitioner - Raju @ Rajendra has remained in custody for a period
of one year 5 months and 14 days, thus without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the
present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period
of sentence already undergone by them.
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
(3 of 3) [CRLR-968/2004]
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..."
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 is allowed. Accordingly,
while maintaining conviction of the petitioners for the offence
under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC, the sentence awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them and
imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioners
are on bail, thus they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
8. Pending pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
9. A copy of this order be separately placed in the connected
file.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Preeti Asopa/8-9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
