Partly allowed

Smt Sudesh Kumari v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2024CRLR/1047/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged her conviction and sentence for offence under Section 304A IPC. The court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, considering the long pendency of the case (26 years) and financial hardship. The fine was directed to be deposited.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine to be deposited within two months.

Smt Sudesh Kumari Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42767]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2005

¶4

Smt Sudesh Kumari wife of Randhir Singh, R/o Ghadi Nobabad Police Station Bhora District Mujaffar Nagar, (UP). (At present in District Jail, Alwar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Sinsinwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶11

09/10/2024

¶12

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.10.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kishangarhbas, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.55/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC as ordered by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 14.05.2002 in Criminal Case No.355/1998, the petitioner’s sentence has been modified and she has been sentenced to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment, instead of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

[2024:RJ-JP:42767]

[CRLR-1047/2005]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by her. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Addl. G A appearing for the State has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶19

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶20

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about 26 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of

[2024:RJ-JP:42767]

[CRLR-1047/2005]

(3 of 3)

Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that she faced financial hardship and she had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶25

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶26

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2002 and affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 06.10.2005 with the learned trial Court, if no already deposited, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. She need not to surrender. Her bail bonds are cancelled accordingly.

¶27

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶28

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶29

AVINASH GULERIA /19

Smt Sudesh Kumari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudesh Kumari 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

Manoj Thavani Proprietor C.M. Enterprises Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustaq @ Aarif Son of Majid @ Akhtar Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Udal Singh Sikarwal Son of Shri Babu Singh Sikarwal Vs Brijesh Agarwal Son of Shri Lallu Lal Agrawal

Omprakash Gurjar S/O Shri Sanwarmal Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Lakhan Singh Meena S/O Shri Pyare Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan