High Court partly allowed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition regarding conviction under Section 379 IPC. Court maintained conviction but reduced sentence to the period already served based on earlier precedents and circumstances.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner released if not required in any other case.
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:47841]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1836/2024
Satish Kumar Son Of Laxman Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Bahala, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Alwar, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ( At Present In Central Jail, Alwar).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jamasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
22/11/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:47841]
[CRLR-1836/2024]
(2 of 4)
Appeal No.20/2024 C.I.S. No.91/2024, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 29.02.2024 passed by the trial Court.
(Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022),
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:-
“43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz
[2024:RJ-JP:47841]
[CRLR-1836/2024]
(3 of 4)
(supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them.
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...”
[2024:RJ-JP:47841]
[CRLR-1836/2024]
(4 of 4)
case is found to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has already remained in custody for about fifteen (15) months, as evident from the custody certificate submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.
Court.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
ARTI SHARMA /25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reduce the awarded sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner under special circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶21
Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022)
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶31
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶34
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Kumar Son Of Laxman Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
