Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 116 (RAJ)

Daulat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan

2001-01-22

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 53/99, by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 24.5.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur in Criminal Original Case No. 176/86 whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) IPC and sentenced in the following manner : Name of accused-appellant Convicted under Section Sentence awarded Daulat Singh 279 IPC 337 IPC 338 IPC 304(A) IPC Three months SI and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days. One month's SI and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. Six months' SI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI. Six months' SI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner during the course of arguments has not challenged the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and has prayed that so far as the revision regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) IPC is concerned, it may be dismissed. However, he has argued on point of sentence stating that since the incident took place on 21.3.1986 and more than 14 years have passed now and the accused-petitioner was awarded six months SI and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and out of six months, accused-petitioner has already served out the sentence of five months. He has been in jail since 17.8.2000, therefore, lenient view be taken and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released accordingly. 3. This prayer of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. He has been in jail since 17.8.2000, therefore, lenient view be taken and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released accordingly. 3. This prayer of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Since the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction is liable to be dismissed. 5. However, on sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that incident took place on 21.3.1986 and now more than 14 years have passed and out of six months' sentence, the accused-petitioner has already served out the sentence of five months, it would be in the interest of justice that the period of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against conviction is dismissed and the conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur vide judgment and order dated 24.5.1999 as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udiapur in appeal vide his judgment and order dated 17.8.2000, is maintained. However, on point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed (sic) awarded by the Courts below to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, the accused-petitioner- Daulat Singh, who is in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******