Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish @ Jag Jiwan vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:37900) on 11 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:37900]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 266/2006
Jagdish @ Jag Jiwan
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. S.S. Rathore
Mr. Hitendra Singh
Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
11/09/2024
1. Under challenge herein is an Appellate Court judgment dated
24.03.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in
Criminal Appeal No.24/2001, whereby the judgment dated
17.04.2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dungarpur, in Regular Criminal Case No.105/2001
convicting the revisionist-petitioner, was upheld. The petitioner
was convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned below:
Offence Sentence Fine
279 IPC 6 months SI -----
304-A IPC 2 years SI -----
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that
the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended
by this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2006, passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.76/2006.
[2024:RJ-JD:37900] (2 of 4) [CRLR-266/2006]
3. He points out that petitioner was driving a private vehicle
when he collided with the motor cycle, however, there was
contributory negligence also of the deceased who was driving the
motor cycle.
4. Given the lapse of time caused by pendency of the instant
revision petition, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner
makes a limited submission that the sentence awarded to the
present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period
of sentence already undergone by him. He thus submits that given
that the petitioner is currently 60 years old, he does not wish to
press the matter on merits and seeks the indulgence of this Court
to let the conviction be maintained and convert the sentence to
the one already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State contends
that learned trial court after considering the evidence and material
on record rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the case filed.
7. From the record, it is borne out that the incident took place
in the year 1993. The revision petition pertains to the year 2006.
The petitioner has already suffered the pangs protracted litigation
for around 25 years. Further, he has already undergone sentence
for a period of 31 days. Petitioner, at the time of incident, was
aged about 29 years old and now he is 60 years old. Petitioner is
stated to be a poor person. His antecedents are clean.
8. Insofar as, upholding of sentence at this stage, I am of the
opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the
[2024:RJ-JD:37900] (3 of 4) [CRLR-266/2006]
petitioner to jail at this point of time to undergo the remaining
period of sentence.
9. In this context, reference may be had to 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 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..."
10. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the conviction
of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of
detention already undergone by him. Order of payment of fine and
so also consequences in default thereof, however, are maintained.
11. The impugned order of sentence thus stands modified to the
extent indicated above. Accordingly, the present revision is partly
[2024:RJ-JD:37900] (4 of 4) [CRLR-266/2006]
allowed. The petitioner is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall
stand discharged in due course.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J.
23-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
