Partly allowed

Raghuveer v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2015CRLR/1272/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 304A IPC but partly allowed the revision to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in confinement, cancelling bail bonds and modifying impugned judgments.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction maintained; bail bonds cancelled; no surrender required.

Raghuveer Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1272/2002 (Raghuveer Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Order :: 4^th August, 2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, for the petitioner Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State

¶9

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 2.12.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Cr. Appeal No. 4/2002, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order dated 23.1.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khanpur in Cr. Case No. 535/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 304 A IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.1999, the complainant Devlal submitted a written report to the Police Station, Khanpur. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 371/1999 was lodged and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Thereafter the substance of accusation was stated to the accused person, who denied the same and

¶11

¶12

claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses. The statement of accused person were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 23.1.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 2.12.2002 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

¶13

Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that occurrence took place in the year 1999 i.e. 16 years ago from today; the petitioner is facing the trial since the last 16 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioner was young and now the petitioner is old aged person; the petitioner has remained in custody for about 1 month and 24 days; the petitioner is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not previously convicted person; and he is not the habitual offender, hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and

¶15

¶16

if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.

¶17

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the accused petitioner should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The courts below after due appreciation of evidence submitted by both the parties, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner, hence no interference is required by this Court.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioner on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed;

¶21

ii) His conviction is maintained;

¶22

iii)His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.

¶23

¶24

iv) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶25

Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.

¶26

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

¶27

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA

Raghuveer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh and Ors. Vs State

Budha Ram and Another Vs State

Harveer Vs State

Reniya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Khitkool Vs State

Mahendra Bugalia Vs State Revenu Departmentors