Lala Ram And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4937)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5137 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5137 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lala Ram And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4937) on 22 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:4937]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1270/2007

1. Lala Ram S/o Devkaran
2. Bhopal Singh S/o Bahadur Singh,
Both R/o Mod ka Nimbahera, P.S. Asind, Distt. Bhilwara
                                                                 ----petitionerss
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For petitioners(s)        :     Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

22/01/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against

the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal

No.29/2004 whereby the judgment dated 11.06.2004 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Asind, District Bhilwara

in Criminal Regular Case No.164/2000 was modified to the extent

of sentences awarded to the petitioners. The accused petitioners

were convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 341 and

394/34 of the IPC vide judgment dated 11.06.2004 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Asind, District Bhilwara.

Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on

29.03.2000, the complainant - Moinuddin submitted a written

report before the SHO of Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara

alleging inter alia that on 27.03.2000, the complainant along with

[2025:RJ-JD:4937] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1270/2007]

his brother-in-law Idrish Mohd. was travelling to Bhilwara from

Badnor on motorcycle. When they reached near Nimbahera, the

petitioners and 10-12 unknown persons have looted the

complainant and his brother-in-law and snatched away Rs.625/-

and a silver chain with locket from them.

On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 51/2000 was

registered against the accused- petitioners for the offences under

Sections 341, 323 and 392 of IPC and investigation was

commenced. After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion

of the trial, the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial

court below for the offences under Sections 341 & 394/34 of IPC

vide judgment dated 11.06.2004 which was modified by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 14.11.2007 to the

extent of maintaining their conviction and reducing the sentences

awarded to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioners were suspended by this

Court vide order dated 20.11.2007 in S.B. Cr. Misc. (Suspension of

Sentences) Application No.331/2007

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have undergone detention for some period and the

case is pending against them since 2000. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a

long protracted trial and therefore, without making any

interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the

present petitioners may be substituted with the period of

sentences already undergone by them.

[2025:RJ-JD:4937] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1270/2007]

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2007.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.

Hon'ble the 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 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..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioners for the offence under Sections 341 & 394/34 of IPC,

[2025:RJ-JD:4937] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1270/2007]

the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They

need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.