Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 99 (RAJ)

Veermati v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-07

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. A letter addressed to this court by the wife of convict prisoner Satveer S/o Lalchand, who is undergoing sentence at Central Jail, Bikaner, is treated as criminal miscellaneous petition and notice was issued to the respondents through Additional Government Advocate. 2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the present petitioner, viz., Satveer, was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.3/2003 vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2005, as under:- 148 I.P.C. 2 Years' RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo one month's RI in default of payment of fine. 323/149 I.P.C. 6 months' RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo 10 days' RI in default of payment of fine. 325/149 I.P.C. 3 years' RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo one month's RI in default of payment of fine. 302 I.P.C. Life term imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and to further undergo two months' RI in default of payment of fine. 302/149 I.P.C. Life term imprisonment with fine of L 5000/- and to further undergo two months' RI in default of payment of fine. 3. It was further ordered that all the sentences will run consecutively. The convict preferred DB Criminal Appeal No.636/2005 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was partly allowed by this court vide judgment dated 02.11.2010 and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Special Leave Petition No.19470/2011 against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2011. 4. In another judgment dated 25.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, in Criminal Case No.515/2001, the husband of the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years' imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/-. The convict thereafter preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, which was partly allowed by him vide judgment dated 06.01.2006 and the convict was ordered to be released on probation. 5. 5000/-. The convict thereafter preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, which was partly allowed by him vide judgment dated 06.01.2006 and the convict was ordered to be released on probation. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the Criminal case No.515/2001, though initially convict was sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment but in appeal he was released on probation and before awarding benefit of Probation he was in custody in that case for about 18 months and was also in custody in Sessions Case No.3/2003 and the respondents computed the period of sentence first in Criminal Case No.515/2001 while he was given probation in that case. Therefore, the period for which he remained in custody in Criminal Case No.515/2001 be counted in Sessions Case No.3/2003. 6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the convict served the sentence after conviction in Criminal Case No.515/2001 from 25.02.2005 to 09.12.2006, i.e. 1 year 9 months 14 days and during trial he remained in custody for 3 months 13 days, total 2 years 27 days and the sentence for life imprisonment was commenced on 10.12.2006, after release of the convict in Criminal Case No.515/2001 on 09.12.2006. As such, from 10.12.2006 to 19.08.2003, he served sentence for 9 years 2 months 7 days in Sessions case No. 03/2003. He further submitted that the convict was convicted in Sessions Case No.3/2003 on 27.05.2005, therefore, after being released in Criminal Case No.515/2001, he served the sentence of Sessions Case No.3/2003. He also submitted that after conviction in Sessions Case No.3/2003 on 27.05.2005, in Criminal case No.515/2001, convict served the sentence from 27.05.2005 to 09.12.2005, i.e. 1 year 6 months 12 days and the same cannot be considered in Sessions case No. 03/2003 without the order of the court. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and perused the available record including the copy of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Criminal Appeal No.10/2005. 8. The appellate court, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No.10/2005 and after setting aside the order of sentence, extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act to the convict in Criminal case No. 515/2001. 8. The appellate court, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No.10/2005 and after setting aside the order of sentence, extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act to the convict in Criminal case No. 515/2001. As such, the sentence awarded in Criminal Case No.515/2001 was no more and for the same period he remained in custody in Sessions Case No.3/2003, i.e. for 1 year 6 months 12 days. When the convict remained in custody in two cases and the sentence of one case was set aside, then that period should have been counted in the sentence of the remaining case, i.e. Sessions Case No.3/2003. 9. In view of the above, this miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed and it is directed that the period for which convict Satveer S/o Lalchand remained in custody in Criminal Case No.515/2001, i.e. 1 year 6 months 12 days be counted as served sentence of the convict in Sessions Case No.3/2003.Petition allowed. *******