Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1730 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Nath v. State of Rajasthan

2022-05-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2000 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2017. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Criminal appeal No. 21/2015 whereby the judgment dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Criminal Case No. 337/2001, convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld while amending/modifying the order of learned trial court to the extent of conviction under Section 148 IPC instead of Section 148/149 IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Section Sentence 148 IPC Two year's S.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further one month's S.I. (each). 341/149 IPC One month's S.I., and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further five days' S.I. (each). 326/149 IPC Three years S.I., and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further two months' S.I. (each). 325/149 IPC Two years S.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further one month' S.I. (each). 324/149 IPC Two years S.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further one month' S.I. (each). 323/149 IPC Six months' S.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further 15 days' S.I. (each). 3. Learned counsel for the parties submits that there are cross cases between the parties and since a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, therefore, the Court may take a lenient view while directing that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 22.11.2017 passed in S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Revision) No. 364/2017. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 22.11.2017 passed in S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Revision) No. 364/2017. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. 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." 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 petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 341/149, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 & 323/149 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.