Gauri Shanker vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5802)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5675 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5675 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gauri Shanker vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5802) on 29 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:5802]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 486/2006

Gauri Shanker S/o Niranjan Swaroop Ji, R/o 4-A-21, Sector No.7,
Hiran Magri, Udaipur
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vipin Makkad
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

29/01/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

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

the judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal

No.8/2005 whereby the judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (South) No.2, Udaipur in

Criminal Original Case No.209/2003 was upheld. The accused

petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated

09.09.2004 passed by the trial court as below:

Conviction for Offences Under Sentences Sections 332 IPC Three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.'200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional two days' simple imprisonment 353 IPC Two months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional One day's simple imprisonment Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[2025:RJ-JD:5802] (2 of 4) [CRLR-486/2006]

Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on

13.03.2003, the complainant - Babu Lal, Constable of Traffic

Police, Police Station (South) Udaipur was beaten by the petitioner

while he was on his duty opposite to Rex Studio.

An FIR No.43/2003was registered against the accused-

petitioner at Police Station Bhupalpura for the offences under

Sections 332 & 353 of IPC and investigation was commenced.

After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion of the trial,

the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for

the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 which was

upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

07.06.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 21.06.2006 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.126/2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 2003. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present petitioner

may be substituted with the period of sentences already

undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

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

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2006.

Heard.

[2025:RJ-JD:5802] (3 of 4) [CRLR-486/2006]

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 2003 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2006.

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-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner for the offence under Section 332 & 353 of IPC, the

sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone by him.