Rajasthan High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:40972) on 25 September, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:40972]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 855/2005
Mahendra Singh S/o Narayan Singh, resident of Nangla Sevla,
Police Thana Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
25/09/2024
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by
the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401
Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
06.04.2002 passed by the learned Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur, (for short the 'trial Court') in
Criminal Case No. 448/94, whereby the learned trial Court
convicted the accused- petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 304A IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further one month simple imprisonment and for the offence
punishable under Section 337 IPC to undergo three months
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days simple
imprisonment. The petitioner has further challenged the judgment
dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Court of Additional
[2024:RJ-JP:40972] (2 of 4) [CRLR-855/2005]
Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, (for short the 'Appellate Court') in
Criminal Appeal No. 52/2003, whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the aforesaid appeal and affirmed the judgment and
order dated 06.04.2002 passed by the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner submits
that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was
suspended by the Court vide its order dated 16.09.2005. Counsel
makes only a limited prayer 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.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner.
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)
[2024:RJ-JP:40972] (3 of 4) [CRLR-855/2005]
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
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..."
[2024:RJ-JP:40972] (4 of 4) [CRLR-855/2005]
7. The present matter pertains to an incident which
occurred in year 1994 and this revision petition has been pending
since year 2005. 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 petitioner.
8. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly,
while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the
offence(s) under Sections 304-A & 337 I.P.C., the sentence
awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is reduced to the period
already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody,
thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
