Partly allowed

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2024CRLR/222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for condoning delay in filing a criminal revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Subsequently, the revision was allowed, reducing the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction and the fine.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for condoning delay and revision allowed; sentence reduced to period undergone; conviction and fine maintained; petitioner released if not wanted elsewhere.

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11450]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 222/2024

¶4

Mahipal S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Losal, P.s. Losal, District Sikar (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sudesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

05/03/2024

¶13

The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning delay in filing revision petition.

¶14

For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing revision petition is condoned.

¶15

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No.38/2023, whereby, the learned appellate court, while partly allowing the appeal of the accused-petitioner, has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sikar in Criminal Case CIS No.2622/2021 and the revisionistpetitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:11450]

[CRLR-222/2024]

Section 457 IPC :

Two years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

¶21

Section 380 IPC :

¶22

Two years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs1000/and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 1 year 16 months and 16 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences 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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶27

“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.”

¶28

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶29

“…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:11450]

[CRLR-222/2024]

(3 of 3)

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 457 & 380 IPC, the sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶34

The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶36

Preeti Asopa /78

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Vikas Banjara Son of Beeru Banjara Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal S/O Shri Bherulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Mohan @ Chotu Son of Ganesh Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpendra Mohan Pathak Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Pathak Vs Rambabu Gupta Son of Late Shri Nanagram

Indernath Tandon S/O Shri Suanath Tandon, Vs Mahendra Kumar Chauhan S/O Shri Manibhai Gujrati

Kailashi S/O Bijendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan