(1 of 3)

[CRLR-324/2001]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 324/2001

Suresh

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. S.G. Ojha

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

05/05/2022

1.

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant,abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1994 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 2001.

3.

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 07.06.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.62-A/99, whereby the

judgment dated 21.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil

Judge, (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in Criminal

Original Case No.396/98, convicting the revisionist-petitioners was

upheld. The petitioners was convicted for the offences under

(2 of 3)

[CRLR-324/2001]

Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC, and sentence awarded to

the petitioner were to run concurrently, as under:-

Section 279 IPC: Three Months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- in

default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.

Section 337 IPC: Three Months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- in

default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.

Section 338 IPC: One years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default

of payment of fine to further undergo one months' S.I.

Section 304A IPC: One years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in

default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' S.I.

4.

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 18.06.2001.

5.

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.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

7.

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.”

(3 of 3)

[CRLR-324/2001]

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…”

8.

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, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC, the sentence awarded to

him is reduced to the period a