State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor v. For

: Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 17/09/2025 : Instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dt.12.07.2007 passed by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City (Karauli), in Criminal Appeal No.27/2004, whereby the judgment dt.05.08.2004 passed by the Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, in Case No.285/1997 was upheld & the petitioner was convicted for offence under u/S.279 I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- & in default thereof, to further undergo 5-days simple imprisonment, for offence u/S.337 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- & in default thereof, to further undergo 5-days simple imprisonment, for offence u/S.338 I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- & in default thereof, to further undergo 15-days simple imprisonment, for offence u/S.304-A I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo one year & six months simple [2025:RJ-JP:38102] (2 of 4) [CRLR-777/2007] imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- & in default thereof, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner contends that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide its order dt.25.07.2007. Counsel further contends that in the special circumstances where the matters are of extremely old pendency and unless there are aggravating circumstances the same need not to be revisited on merits, and, thus, it is a fit case for interfere of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Counsel also contends that the petitioner had undergone detention for some period & he is facing agony of a long protracted litigation since 1997 and, therefore, he, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence. Heard. Perused the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the ld. Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner. Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to [2025:RJ-JP:38102] (3 of 4) [CRLR-777/2007] interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 1997. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 28 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioner in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and they had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by him. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Court in the cases of Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CRLR 1294, 1, Puran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 1 CRLR 662 and Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019) decided on 19.04.2022, wherein it was clearly held that in the special conditions, owning to the facts & circumstance of a case, the minimum sentence can be overlooked by the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of passing an order, substituting the sentence awarded with the period already undergone by the petitioner, where the sentence undergone by the petitioner is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute. [2025:RJ-JP:38102] (4 of 4) [CRLR-777/2007] Thus, the analogy drawn, from the precedent laws discussed above, is that even under special laws, wherein a minimum sentence for offences under the provision of the concerned statute is prescribed, the Hon’ble Apex Court & this Court have taken a consistent approach in reducing the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone, even below the minimum sentence prescribed, owing to the special facts & circumstances of each case. This Court, therefore, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the present case, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of incident as well as keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, partly allows this revision petition. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. However, the fine imposed earlier shall be set off, if already deposited. All pending application stands disposed of. Record of the ld. Court below be sent back forthwith. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK/