Disposed¶44

Jai Prakash v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2025CRLR/629/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

sentence reduced to period already undergone; protracted trial more than 26 years; Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC; Section 397/401 CrPC revision; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Sessions Judge Tonk; JMFC Tonk; FIR No. 68/1998 PS Mahendvas; conviction affirmed; sentencing discretion; no previous conviction; bail bonds discharged; Alister Anthony Pareira (2012) 2 SCC 648; Haripada Das (1998) 9 SCC 678; leniency in sentence; aged accused; coordinate bench sentence-reduction precedents

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of: judgments of the courts below qua conviction affirmed; quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. reduced to the period already undergone; the accused-petitioner, who is on bail, need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. ¶44

Jai Prakash Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgments of conviction passed by the courts below warrant interference in this revision petition (the challenge to conviction was subsequently not pressed, with argument confined to sentence). +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Since the revision petition against conviction was not pressed on merits and nothing in the record requires interference with the finding of guilt, this Court does not interfere and the judgments of the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the precedent law relied upon (including Alister Anthony Pareira and Haripada Das), the Court concluded that sending the accused-petitioner to jail now would serve no fruitful purpose; accordingly, the quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, while conviction is affirmed.

¶43

Key takeaways

Reasons for sentence reduction: the accused-petitioner, who was 28 years old at the time of the 1998 incident, has suffered a protracted trial spanning more than 26 years, remained incarcerated for some time after the judgment, and no evidence of previous conviction is on record; sending him to jail now would revive old enmity, would not be conducive to peace and harmony in the village, and his family would suffer.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC against conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A I.P.C. arising from a 1998 incident (F.I.R. No. 68/1998, P.S. Mahendvas, District Tonk). Trial court (JMFC, Tonk) convicted on 11.02.2005; Sessions Judge, Tonk dismissed the appeal on 12.06.2006. Counsel for the accused-petitioner did not press the challenge to conviction, which the Court maintained. On sentence, noting that the accused was 28 years old at the incident, the trial had dragged for more than 26 years, he had been incarcerated for some time, and no previous conviction was on record, and observing that jailing him now would revive old village enmity and harm his family, and relying on Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678, the Court reduced the sentences to the period already undergone, held it sufficient to meet the ends of justice, discharged his bail bonds, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 629/2006

¶3

Jai Prakash S/o Shri Naurang Singh, R/o Village Koka, District Jhajjar, Haryana

¶4

(At present confined in district Jail, Tonk)

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himat Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

08/01/2025

¶13

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner –Jai Prakash against Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2005 (Jai Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 11.02.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A I.P.C, was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-

¶14

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default
u/s 279 IPC	6 Months S.I	-	-
u/s 337 IPC	3 Months S.I	-	-

¶15

	(2 of 6)	[CRLR-629/2006]
u/s 338 IPC	6 Months S.I -	-
u/s 304-A IPC	1year S.I Rs. 1000/-	1 Month S.I

¶16

(All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

¶17

Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the Parcha

¶18

Bayan submitted by complainant – Shivnarayan (P.W. 6) with respect to an incident, which occurred on 20.05.1998, F.I.R. No. 68/1998 was registered at Police Station Mahendvas, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of I.P.C. During investigation, police added Section 338 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accusedpetitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 11.02.2005 convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.02.2005, accusedpetitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 12.06.2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned

¶21

counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts

¶22

(3 of 6) [CRLR-629/2006]

¶23

below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶24

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1998 i.e. more than 26 years ago; accused-petitioner was 28 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 54 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 26 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period more than four months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024) decided on 04.10.2024 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Shyamveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 724/2003) decided on 15.05.2024, Smt. Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2005) decided on 09.10.2024, Mahesh Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 737/2005) decided on 06.11.2024, Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005)

¶26

(4 of 6) [CRLR-629/2006]

¶27

decided on 21.08.2024, Annu @ Anwar vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 333/2018) decided on 04.11.2024, Banna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 391 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024, Heera Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 733/2003) decided on 14.02.2024 & Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024.

¶28

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶29

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶30

[CRLR-629/2006]

¶31

(5 of 6)

¶32

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 28 years young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 26 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

¶33

This Court is conscious of the 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 Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶34

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶35

“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.”

¶36

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶37

“…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…”

¶38

After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering

¶39

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-petitioner is sent behind bars, it will result into

¶40

[CRLR-629/2006]

¶41

(6 of 6)

¶42

reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶43

Consequently, the judgments dated 12.06.2006 and 11.02.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C, awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶44

The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence.

¶45

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶46

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶47

INDER /15

Jai Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra @ Jeetu Son of Gajanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Son of Bainiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh S/O Ramsahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Vats S/O Shri Krishan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Khurshid Khan Vs State

Bhagwan Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp