Partly allowed

Nand Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2024CRLR/427/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order modifies the sentence in a long-pending revision petition arising from a 1998 conviction for offenses under sections 279 and 304A IPC. The court reduced the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

The imprisonment sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The fine and consequences in default were maintained.

Nand Singh Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34543]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 427/2004

Nand Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.S. Gharsana.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. H.S. Jodha,P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶10

Order

¶11

21/08/2024

¶12

Under challenge herein is an Appellate Court judgment dated 30.06.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.112/2001, whereby the judgment dated 27.07.2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No.232/1998, convicting the revisionist-petitioner, was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned below:

¶13

Offence	Sentence	Fine
279 IPC	3 months S.I.	---
304A IPC	1year S.I	Rs.500/-(in default 3 months S.I.)

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 06.07.2004, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.111/2004.

[2024:RJ-JD:34543]

[CRLR-427/2004]

(2 of 3)

Given the lapse of time caused by pendency of the instant revision petition, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes a limited submission that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State contends that learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

¶20

I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case filed. 6. From the record, it is borne out that the incident took place in the year 1998. The revision petition pertains to the year 2004. The petitioner has already suffered protracted litigation pangs of around 26 years. Further, he has already undergone sentence for a period of 7 days. Petitioner is stated to be a poor person. His antecedents are clean. At the time of incident, petitioner / convict was 51 years old and has been in litigation ever since. Currently, he is 75 years old senior citizen.

¶21

Insofar as, upholding of sentence at this stage, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this point of time to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

¶22

In this context, reference may be had to judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)

¶23

2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-

[2024:RJ-JD:34543]

[CRLR-427/2004]

(3 of 3)

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶28

“ 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. ”

¶29

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶30

“…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…”

¶31

Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him. Order of payment of fine and so also consequences in default thereof, however, are maintained. 10. The impugned order of sentence thus stands modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. The petitioner is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged in due course.

¶32

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶33

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶34

13-Sumit/-

Nand Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahaveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit @ Ronit Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhusudan Gopal Vyas Vs State

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Dindor Vs State of Rajasthan