Partly allowed

Ramesh Yadav v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2024CRLR/797/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court maintained the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Due to the protracted trial spanning 23 years, the Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The fine was directed to be recovered under Section 461 BNSS if not deposited.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time spent in grievance; fine of Rs. 1,000 deposited with trial Court, recoverable under Section 461 BNSS if unpaid; bail cancelled.

Ramesh Yadav Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39450]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2006

¶4

Ramesh Yadav S/o Shri Ganesh Narain Yadav, R/o A-21 Shiv Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Sinsinwar Mr. N.N. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 18/09/2024

¶11

Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accusedpetitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment 19.07.2006 passed by Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Prevention) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.324/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 26.06.2003 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.17, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.628/2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 279 IPC & sentenced to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment and convicted for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/and in default thereof to further undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and

[2024:RJ-JP:39450]

[CRLR-797/2006]

(2 of 3)

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed on merits 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.

¶19

So far as the question of quantum is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about 23 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, 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 &

[2024:RJ-JP:39450]

[CRLR-797/2006]

(3 of 3)

circumstances of the case, his status in the society 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.

¶24

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 offence, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2003 and affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.07.2006 with the learned trial Court, if not 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 stand cancelled accordingly.

¶26

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶27

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶28

Avinash/Ritu/23

Ramesh Yadav v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav 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