Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balvindra Singh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:29431) on 13 September, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:29431]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 557/2003
1. Balvindra Singh s/o Surjan Singh, r/o Firozpur Police
Station, Tehsil and District Firozpur (Punjab).
2. Resham Singh s/o Surjan Singh, r/o Ward No.45,
Sriganganagar.
3. Majar Singh s/o Sadhu Singh, r/o Firozpur Police Station,
Tehsil and District Firozpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr.RDSS Kharlia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikram Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
13/09/2023 This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.6.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Cr.Appeal No.37/2002 whereby the judgment dated 22.11.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sadulshahar in Cr.Original Case No.412/98 was upheld and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as below:
Conviction for offences Sentences under Sections: 341 IPC 1 month's simple imprisonment. 147 IPC 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
148 IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29431] (2 of 4) [CRLR-557/2003] further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
323/149 IPC 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
324/149 IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
325/149 IPC 2 years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently A perusal of the record of the case file makes it is evident that on 25.08.1998, at about 4:30 pm, the petitioners and other persons armed with lathis and knives assaulted the complainant, while he was going to a buy a buffalo to Kikar Chak. The petitioners were tried for the offences by competent criminal court and convicted vide judgment dated 22.11.2001, which came to be upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated 18.6.2003.
Learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionists-petitioners were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 15.7.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application No.147/2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners had undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29431] (3 of 4) [CRLR-557/2003] present revisionists-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe 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..."
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionists-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:59 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29431] (4 of 4) [CRLR-557/2003] Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/ Sr.No.14 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:59 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)