Heard. Perused the record. In Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh

: Mr. Rajesh Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 26/03/2025 Order

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

29.08.2001 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.203/89, whereby the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 29.08.2001 passed by the trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing No.46/2001 before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar whereby the learned Court vide order dated 24.11.2005 had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:13888] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1211/2005]

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 1989 and this revision petition has been pending since year 2005. Counsel makes only a limited prayer 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, which is about 09 days.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner.

5. Heard. Perused the record. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:- “43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.” (Emphasis supplied) This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to [2025:RJ-JP:13888] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1211/2005] reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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...”

7. This High Court in the case of Jiyaram Devasi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.400 of 1998, decided on 15.07.2019, (2019(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1415), has observed as under: “11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of one month and eleven days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. [2025:RJ-JP:13888] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1211/2005] Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained be- hind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 326 IPC and af- firmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while increasing the amount of fine. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction and sen- tence for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.200/- imposed for offence u/S 341 IPC and Rs.500/- imposed for offence u/S 323 IPC is hereby maintained, however the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed for offence u/S 326 IPC is in- creased to Rs.2,000/-, in total each of the accused-pe- titioners is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- as fine. Two month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the peti- tioners shall undergo two months simple imprison- ment. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The record of the courts below be sent back forth- with.”

8. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 1989 and this revision petition has been pending since year

2005. The petitioner is said to be living peacefully in the intervening period and no adverse material or other criminal case is found to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has already remained in custody for about 09 days, as evident from the custody certificate submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC, the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of the accused petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:13888] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1211/2005] was suspended vide order dated 01.12.2005 and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.

10. The impugned judgment of the trial Court stands modified as indicated hereinabove.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

12. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court. GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /2 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J