Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Veena vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32674) on 24 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:32674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 138/2013
Veena W/o Devendra @ Balvinder Singh B/c Arora R/o Sureshiya
Hanumangarh .
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 24/07/2025
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2010, whereby the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by acquitting her under Section 292 IPC and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2010 for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the PITA Act rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.181/2006 (108/2006).
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the PITA Act. On each count, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year, along with a fine of ₹200/-; in default of payment of the said fine, she was directed to (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32674] (2 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013] further undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of one month.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not press the present revision petition insofar as it pertains to the finding of conviction. The challenge is confined only to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the occurrence in question dates back to the year 2005 and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of approximately two months. It is contended that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to serve the remainder of the sentence, especially considering the passage of time, the nature of the offence, and the petitioner's antecedents. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view be taken and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be suitably reduced to the period already undergone.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. I have also perused the impugned orders and the materials available on record.
5. So far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, in view of the fair concession made by the learned counsel, and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. There appears to be no patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference in the conclusion as to guilt. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 3, 4, (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32674] (3 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013] 5 & 7 under the PITA Act, as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby upheld and maintained.
6. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, it is not disputed that the incident in question occurred in the year 2005 and the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a considerable duration during the course of trial and post-conviction-- approximately two months. Additionally, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is now aged and is a person of limited financial means. She has suffered the ordeal of a prolonged litigation extending over two decades, thereby undergoing immense mental agony and social distress.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, including the age and socio-economic status of the petitioner, the length of the pendency of proceedings, the fact that she has already undergone part of the custodial sentence, and more particularly the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678, and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the PITA Act as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.181/2006 (108/2006), and affirmed the (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32674] (4 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013] judgment dated 03.09.2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.11/2010, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby modified. It is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall stand reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine imposed shall remain intact. In the event of non-payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable to undergo the default sentence as originally awarded.
9. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J 8-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)