The High Court, in a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., allowed the petition to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused for a Section 224 IPC offence, maintaining the conviction and discharging bail bonds.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:20608]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1093/2003
Fariyad @ Baba S/o Thauddin R/o Nabiya Ka Badh, Police Station Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (At present in judicial custody at Sub-Jail Gangapurcity).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Nonepresent |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
01/05/2024
Section 224 of IPC: One year Rigorous imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JP:20608]
[CRLR-1093/2003]
(2 of 3)
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…”
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:20608]
[CRLR-1093/2003]
petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 224 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail, thus he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
pcg/2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner should be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.
Whether the bail bonds of the petitioner stand discharged.
Whether the conviction under Section 224 of IPC should be maintained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareia Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶22
(2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶22
(1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Fariyad @ Baba
State of Rajasthan
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Praveer Bhatnagar
Parties & counsel
