HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Shivlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/1996
Decided On : 31-08-2022
SENTENCING PRINCIPLES - Criminal Appeal - The court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, considering the time spent in custody, the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and the precedent laws.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 307, 324 and 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to 6 years R.I. along with a fine. The appellant had already undergone about 20 months in custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the appellant's conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's request to reduce the sentence based on the time already spent in custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the time spent in custody, the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and precedent laws related to sentencing principles.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant was allowed to remain on bail.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that appeal so filed by the accused-appellant may kindly be allowed and accused appellant be acquitted for the offence with which he has been charged, with and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case that he accused appellant is in jail since 17/11/94, he be released on the sentence already undergone, or looking to the facts& circumstances of the case probation be given under the Probation of Offenders Act""
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present Criminal Appeal has been pending since the year 1996.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 14/1995, whereby the learned Court convicted the appellant, under Sections 307, 324 and 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959 for which he was awarded multiple sentences, all of which were to run concurrently and he was sentenced to 6 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 6 months imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 03.07.1996 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 199/1996.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone about 20 months in custody out of the total sentence so awarded to him by the learned Court below.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident in question, allegedly occurred when the appellant was hunting deer, and inadvertently fired at, and injured, Ramniwas; who was cutting pala in his field with other persons. And that, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question, to corroborate the version of the prosecution.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakhvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 and a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Labuda v. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 356/1994, decided by this Hon'ble Court on 16.01.1996).
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor however, opposed the appeal.
10. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
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..."
11. This Court observes that, the appellant has undergone about 20 months in custody, as revealed from the impugned order, which shows that he was taken into custody immed
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648
The court has the discretion to consider the time already spent in custody and may reduce the sentence accordingly.
The court considered the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellants.
The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing policy to reduce the appellants' sentence to the period already undergone.
The court emphasized the consideration of the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence.
The court must consider the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing, as well as the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's application of sentencing principles, considering the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and other atte....
The court's decision was influenced by the sentencing principles, considering the crucial witness turning hostile and the non-recovery of the weapon of the crime, leading to the reduction of the appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to substitute the sentence with the period already undergone by the appellant, considering the serious lacunae in the prosec....
The court considered the principles of sentencing policy and the gravity of the crime in reaching its decision to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
The court has the discretion to consider factors such as age, nature of allegations, and case pendency in determining the appropriate sentence, as established in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of M....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.