Partly allowed

Sohan Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2024CRLR/718/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; conviction not pressed. Court maintained conviction but reduced substantive imprisonment to period already undergone, considering the 26-year-old case and hardship, relying on Apex Court precedents on sentencing leniency.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs.1500/- payable within two months; bail bonds cancelled.

Sohan Lal Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39483]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2006

¶4

Sohan Lal S/o Nand Lal R/o Chand Ji Ki Kheri, P.S Bijolia, District Bhilwara (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶11

18/09/2024

¶12

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2 Kota in Criminal Appeal No.52/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as ordered by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 11.11.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.3 Kota (North) in Criminal Case No.421/1998, the petitioner’s sentence has been modified for the offence under Section 304A IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment instead of two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The appellate Court maintained the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC as awarded to him by the trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2005, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’

[2024:RJ-JP:39483]

[CRLR-718/2006]

(2 of 3)

simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen days imprisonment.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by him. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Addl. G A appearing for the State has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶20

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶21

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about 26 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus,

[2024:RJ-JP:39483]

[CRLR-718/2006]

(3 of 3)

guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶26

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1500/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2005 and affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 22.06.2006 with the learned trial Court, if no already deposited, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled accordingly.

¶28

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶29

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶30

AVINASH GULERIA /20

Sohan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhairulal S/O Shri Motilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Divyanshu Samariya S/O Shri Anil Samariya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Shamra Son of Sh. Shyam Sundar Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram @ Vikki S/O Shankar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Naina Chandwani Wife of Harish Chandwani, Vs Bharti Bhargava Wife of Satish Kumar Bhargava

Lalita Devi W/O Mukut Murari Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan