Two accused convicted for outraging a woman's modesty sought reduction of sentence after not pressing their revisions on merits. The High Court affirmed the convictions but reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone, citing protracted trial, youth at incident, custody already served and absence of prior convictions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1701/2011
Mani Ram @ Punna Ram son of Shri Prabhu Dayal, Resident of Bhanwati Post Bhanwati, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (At present confined at Sub-Jail, Bandikui, Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1612/2011
Laxmi Narayan son of Shri Ram Kishan, Resident of Bhanwati, Post Bhanwati, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa
(Accused in Sub-Jail Bandikui, District Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivlal Meena & Nemichand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
JUDGMENT
10/02/2025
[CRLR-1701/2011]
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
(2 of 6)
05.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal Nos. 18/2007 (Mani Ram @ Punna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan) and 17/207 (Laxmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan), vide which criminal appeals filed by the accused-petitioners against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 10.04.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No.54/2006 (State of Rajasthan vs. Mani Ram @ Punnaram & anr.) convicting and sentencing them for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, were dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
[CRLR-1701/2011]
(3 of 6)
I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2007, accused-petitioners preferred separate appeals before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2011 dismissing the appeals and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, these criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the accusedpetitioners.
(4 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
[CRLR-1701/2011]
(5 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
[CRLR-1701/2011]
of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioners is produced on record.
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“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.”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“…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…”
the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioners are sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that families of the petitioners will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now.
[CRLR-1701/2011]
[2025:RJ-JP:5711]
(6 of 6)
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
INDER /33-34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 354/34 IPC affirmed by courts below required revision.
Whether sentence should be reduced to period already undergone given protracted trial and no prior convictions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mani Ram @ Punna Ram
Laxmi Narayan
State Of Rajasthan
Bhuvan Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
