Shyam Lal v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court disposed of connected criminal revision petitions challenging conviction and sentence. Conviction was affirmed but sentences were commuted to the period already undergone by aged petitioners due to protracted trial delays.
What did the court decide?
The sentences imposed were reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners. Bail bonds are discharged and no surrender is required.
What the court decided
[2023:RJ-JD:25699]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 818/2002
Banshi @ Banshiya son of Shri Devilal Chamar, resident of Water Works Road, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 529/2002
Shyam Lal son of Shri Gulab Chand by caste Jingar, resident of Shukla Chowk, Mandsore, District Mandsor
----Petitioner
Versus
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to petitioners for offences committed in 1998 should be commuted given the protracted trial and their advanced age.
Whether the revision petitions challenging conviction and sentencing require interference by the High Court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Banshi @ Banshiya son of Shri Devilal Chamar
- petitioner
Shyam Lal son of Shri Gulab Chand
- respondent
State of Rajasthan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/529/2002
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court