Shanker vs Sate (2025:Rj-Jd:7387)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6557 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6557 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 February, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shanker vs Sate (2025:Rj-Jd:7387) on 5 February, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:7387]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 305/2004

Shanker S/o Unkar Gurjar, R/o Thekla, Tehsil Sahara, District
Bhilwara, Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Anil Kaviraj.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

05/02/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner

has prayed for the following relief:

"It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.15/2004 dt.1.5.2004 arisen against the judgment passed by the learned trial court the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted for the charges levelled against him or any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The Cr. Appeal No. 15/2004 filled on behalf the petitioner

before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special

Judge ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara was

partly allowed vide judgment dated 01.05.2004 while upholding

the conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC and acquitting

him for the offence under Section 448 IPC which were awarded to

him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur,

[2025:RJ-JD:7387] (2 of 4) [CRLR-305/2004]

District Bhilwaravide the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2003

passed in Regular Cr. Case No.232/1991.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the

prosecution story, on 12.09.1990, the complainant submitted a

report before the SHO of Police Station Gangapur, District Bhilwara

alleging inter alia that at around 03:00 P.M., the accused-

petitioner entered the house of his elder brother-Mewa who was

sleeping and hit him with an axe on his right hand.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR was lodged and

after submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken against

the accused- petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 and

448 of IPC. Upon completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted

by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 448 and

326 of IPC vide judgment dated 29.05.2003. The learned

appellate Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under

Section 448 IPC and reduced the sentence awarded to him under

Section 326 of IPC vide judgment dated 01.05.2004.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

incident in the present case relates to the year 1990. The

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there

is no positive evidence available on record indicating his guilt in

commission of the alleged crime.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended

by this Court, vide order dated 13.05.2004 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.68/2004.

[2025:RJ-JD:7387] (3 of 4) [CRLR-305/2004]

7. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1990 and the

petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded

to him. The petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and

therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be substituted with

the period of sentence already undergone by him.

8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is

no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever

and therefore, the same do not call for any interference in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he was

not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision

petition is pending since 2004.

9. Heard.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1990 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2004. The record of

the case indicates that petitioner had already undergone detention

for some period and since the case is pending before this Court

since 2004, the petitioner had suffered both financial hardships

and mental agony.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe 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

[2025:RJ-JD:7387] (4 of 4) [CRLR-305/2004]

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..."

12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the

alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that since the petitioner had undergone detention for some period,

thus, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the

sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted

with the period of sentence already undergone by him, deserves

acceptance.

13. Accordingly, the present revision petition is partly allowed.

While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence

under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby

reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is

on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged