Partly allowed

Saty Aveer v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLR/1275/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition sought a sentence substitute based on time already served. The High Court allowed the petition, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining conviction and fine. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; petitioner on bail; bail bonds discharged without surrender.

Saty Aveer Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50008]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1275/2006

¶4

Satyaveer son of Hawa Singh R/o Village Jagsi, Thana Bisewa, District Sonipat, Haryana, (At present at Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Meena, Adv. for Mr. Ummed Singh Khichar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

04/12/2024

¶13

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2002 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2006.

¶14

This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 04.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.135/2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 27.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.15, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.602/2002, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as under:-

¶15

Under Section 451 of IPC:-

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:50008]

[CRLR-1275/2006]

Two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

¶20

Under Section 354 of IPC:-

¶21

Two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2006 passed in the present case.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 6 months and 18 days, 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.

¶24

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:-

¶25

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶26

“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.”

¶27

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶28

“…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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:50008]

[CRLR-1275/2006]

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…”

¶33

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶34

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶35

Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-15

Saty Aveer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saty Aveer 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

Kundar @ Kundan S/O Bacchulal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sapat Khan S/O Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhura and Anor Vs State

Balla and Ors. Vs State

Lal Chand Vs State and Ors.