The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing the petitioner, considering the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and all other attendant circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2006.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.06.2006 passed by learned learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.16/2006, whereby the judgment dated 20.05.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand in Criminal Reguar Case No.2/2000 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC & Section 134/187 M.V. Act and was sentenced as under:-

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 04.08.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.188/2006.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

6. 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:-

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."

7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC & Section 134/187 M.V. Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.