Partly allowed

Sanjay v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2024CRLR/968/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 2002 case pending in revision since 2004, the High Court, without disturbing conviction under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the long pendency and custody already suffered, relying on Alister Anthony Pareira and Haripada Das. Fine maintained; bail bonds discharged.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; bail bonds discharged.

Sanjay Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 968/2004

¶3

Sanjay s/o Shri Khana, Resident of Panidhal, Police Station Dablana, District Bundi (Raj.) (At present district jail Bundi)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 919/2004

¶10

Raju @ Rajendra s/o Shri Ramkalyan, Resident of Chitwa Police Station K. Paten, District Bundi (Raj.) (At present District Jail Bundi)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jagdish Singh Mr.SK Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.SS Mehla, Public Prosecutor

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶17

06/03/2024

¶18

The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year 2002 and the present criminal revisions are pending since the year 2004.

¶19

These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment dated 25.08.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No.9/2003 & 5/2003, respectively, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 11.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil

¶20

(2 of 3) [CRLR-968/2004]

¶21

Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case No.244/2002 and sentenced as under:-

¶22

Section 224 IPC :

¶23

Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which, they were further ordered to undergo three months' simple imprisonment each.

¶24

Section 225 IPC :

¶25

Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which, they were further ordered to undergo three months' simple imprisonment each.

¶26

Section 120-B IPC :

¶27

Two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of which, they were further ordered to undergo three months' simple imprisonment each.

¶28

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.12.2004 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.210/2004 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.198/2004, respectively.

¶29

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner - Sanjay has already remained in custody for a period of seven months and the petitioner - Raju @ Rajendra has remained in custody for a period of one year 5 months and 14 days, thus without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶31

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CRLR-968/2004]

¶34

Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶35

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶36

“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.”

¶37

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶38

“…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…”

¶39

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioners are on bail, thus they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶40

Pending pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶41

A copy of this order be separately placed in the connected file.

¶42

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶43

Preeti Asopa/8-9

Sanjay v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpendra Mohan Pathak Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Pathak Vs Rambabu Gupta Son of Late Shri Nanagram

Indernath Tandon S/O Shri Suanath Tandon, Vs Mahendra Kumar Chauhan S/O Shri Manibhai Gujrati

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurishankar Sharma S/O Shri Brijkishore Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Roberto Della Valle Vs State

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji Vs State