Partly allowed

Babulal @ Shankarlal v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CRLR/515/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Sections 380 and 457 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Considering the petitioner's protracted litigation, clean antecedents, and financial hardship, the Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment term to the period already undergone but maintained the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine and consequences in default maintained; bail bonds discharged.

Babulal @ Shankarlal Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28156]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 515/2006

Babulal @ Shankarlal

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shambhoo Singh.
	Mr. Tausif Gauri(Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

Order

¶12

10/07/2024

¶13

Under challenge herein is an Appellate Court judgment dated 15.06.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.23/2005, whereby the judgment dated 15.06.2006, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Mawli, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No.145/2005 convicting the revisionistpetitioner, was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned below:

¶14

Offence	Sentence	Fine
457 IPC	1 Year S.I.	Rs.500/-(in default 15 days S.I.)
380 IPC	1 Year S.I	Rs.500/-(in default 15 days S.I.)

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 27.06.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.143/2006.

[2024:RJ-JD:28156]

[CRLR-591/2006]

(2 of 3)

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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 2002. The revision petition pertains to the year 2006. The petitioner has already suffered protracted litigation of around 22 years. Further, he has already undergone sentence for a period of 12 days. Petitioner is poor person and his antecedents are clean.

¶22

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.

¶23

In this context, reference may be had to 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 Apex Court observed as under:-

¶24

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶25

“ There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain

[2024:RJ-JD:28156]

[CRLR-591/2006]

(3 of 3)

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. ”

¶30

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶31

“…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…”

¶32

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 stands discharged.

¶33

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

¶34

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶35

18-Jitender

¶36

Whether fit for reporting- Yes / No

Babulal @ Shankarlal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal @ Shankarlal 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

Rajupuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Ritesh Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Irshad Vs State of Rajasthan

Gheesu Lal and Ors. Vs State

Rajmal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan