Revision petition against conviction for rioting, house-trespass and assault offences from a 1995 incident; petition abated for three deceased accused; sentence of remaining two reduced to period already undergone following compromise between parties.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds cancelled; record returned.
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:49992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 358/2006
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shreya Hatila Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
04/12/2024
(2 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JP:49992]
[CRLR-358/2006]
imprisonment and fine of Rs.600/- each. The accused petitioners have also challenged the judgment dated 05.04.2006, passed by the Court of Addl. Session Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2003, whereby the appeal field by the accused petitioners was dismissd and the judgemnt of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was upheld.
[2024:RJ-JP:49992]
[CRLR-358/2006]
(3 of 6)
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 hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Firoz (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.
(4 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JP:49992]
[CRLR-358/2006]
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 follows:-
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)
“11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accusedpetitioners have so far undergone a period of one month and eleven days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and
(5 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JP:49992]
[CRLR-358/2006]
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 326 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while increasing the amount of fine.
12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.200/- imposed for offence u/S 341 IPC and Rs.500/- imposed for offence u/S 323 IPC is hereby maintained, however the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed for offence u/S 326 IPC is increased to Rs.2,000/-, in total each of the accused-petitioners is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- as fine. Two month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.”
(6 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JP:49992]
[CRLR-358/2006]
to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /9
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on
Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on
(2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Relied on
(1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
Jiyaram Devasi & Anr. Vs. State of RajasthanFollowed
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.400 of 1998, (2019(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1415)
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghuveer Singh
Man Singh
Yadav Singh @ Guddu
Kishan Singh
Lotan Singh @ Rajendra
State of Rajasthan
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
