Partly allowed

Amarjeet v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2022CRLR/531/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone without interfering with the conviction, citing Supreme Court precedents on sentence moderation and dispensing with the need for surrender.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; petitioner need not surrender; bail bond discharged.

Amarjeet Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 531/2007

Amarjeet

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SS Rajpurohit,PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

01/07/2022

¶12

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2007.

¶13

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.06.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal NO.52/07 (110/06) whereby the judgment dated 26.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Misc. Case No.7/2003 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 IPC, 337 & 304(A) of IPC; and for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further seven days' S.I. and for the offence under Section 337 IPC, the

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLR-531/2007]

¶16

petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further seven days' S.I. & for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further seven days' S.I.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 18.06.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.99/2007. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 6. This Court is conscious of the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶19

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶20

“ 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. ”

¶21

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLR-531/2007]

¶24

“…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…”

¶25

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 IPC, 337 & 304(A) of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶26

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.

¶27

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶28

169-Sudheer/-

Amarjeet v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Mukesh

Phool Singh Vs State

Mishri Lal Vs Union of India

Vajiya Vs State

Mohan Lal Vs State

Taj Mohd Vs State and Ors.