Allowed

Smt Ram Kaur v. State

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2024CRLR/1102/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition. The court substituted the awarded sentence with the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, upheld the conviction for cheating and forgery, and maintained the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; petitioner on bail need not surrender.

Smt Ram Kaur Vs State — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:2804]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1102/2004

¶4

Smt. Ram Kaur W/o Heeralal, aged 50 years, by caste Punjabi, r/o Ladpura, Fatehgadhi Rampura, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Harendra Singh
	Mr.	Dharmendra Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Yashwant Kankhadia - PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

17/01/2024

¶13

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2004.

¶14

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2004 passed by learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota in Criminal Appeal No.36/2003, whereby the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota in Criminal Case No.498/2000, whereby, the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:2804]

[CRLR-1102/2004]

Section 420 IPC :

Three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of which, she was further ordered to undergo three months' additional imprisonment.

¶20

Section 467 IPC :

¶21

Three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of which, she was further ordered to undergo three months' additional imprisonment.

¶22

Section 468 IPC :

¶23

Three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of which, she was further ordered to undergo three months' additional imprisonment.

¶24

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.12.2004 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.242/2004.

¶25

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 her.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶27

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:-

¶28

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶29

“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.”

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:2804]

[CRLR-1102/2004]

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶34

“…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…”

¶35

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467 & 468 IPC, the sentence awarded to her is reduced to the period already undergone by her and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner is on bail. She need not surrender. Her bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶36

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

¶37

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶38

12-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680

Smt Ram Kaur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ram Kaur 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

Dinesh Sharma S/O Late Sh. Kalyan Sahay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Banti S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Kumari D/O Pappuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr.Suresh Sharma Vs State

Nar Singh Vs State

Mahipal Meena S/O Shri Prabhulal Vs Vijaypal Yogi S/O Late Gokul Chand