Rajasthan High Court
Ahmed vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:40984) on 24 September, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:40984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 132/1994
Ahmad S/o Shri Sattar, resident of Anandpura P.S. Mandana,
District Kota.
----Accused-appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakad, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
24/09/2024
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the
accused- appellant under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.1994 passed by
the Special Court SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kota (for
short the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 242/91, whereby the
learned trial Court convicted himt for the offence punishable under
Section 332 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further
three months simple imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel for the accused- appellant submits that
the sentence so awarded to the accused- appellant, was
suspended by the Court vide its order dated 07.03.1994. Counsel
makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
[2024:RJ-JP:40984] (2 of 4) [CRLA-132/1994]
accused- appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the accused- appellant.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts &
circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for
offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute,
observed as under:-
"43.............we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said
-"The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that
every saint has a past and every sinner has a future". One of the
basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this
Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the
offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a
socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail.
The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be
the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche
of the offender."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from
hereinabove, that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz
(supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice,
reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would
be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case
at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to
the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special
acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on
the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit
[2024:RJ-JP:40984] (3 of 4) [CRLA-132/1994]
case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the
sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them.
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..."
7. The present matter pertains to an incident which
occurred in the month of December 1985, this criminal appeal has
been pending since year 1994 and since then the accused-
appellant is facing mental agony. The parties are said to be living
peacefully in the intervening period and no adverse material or
other criminal case is found to be registered against the appellant.
8. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of
the appellant and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly,
while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence
[2024:RJ-JP:40984] (4 of 4) [CRLA-132/1994]
under Section 332 of IPC, the sentence awarded to the him is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is
not in judicial custody, thus, he need not surrender. The bail bonds
of the accused- appellant stand discharged accordingly.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
