[2025:RJ-JP:1192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 632/2005 1. Pyara Singh S/o Achhar Singh 2. Bittu @ Rajendra Singh S/o Pyar Singh both R/o Jhaliji Ka Baran, P.S. Gandoli, District Bundi 3. Guljar Singh S/o Achhar, R/o Ladpur, P.S. Keshoraipatan, District Bundi 4. Jassa @ Jaswant Singh S/o Swaran Singh, R/o Suwasa, P.S. Keshoraipatan, District Bundi. 5. Singhara Singh S/o Natha Singh, R/o Chandanheli (Suwasa), P.S. Keshoraipatan, District Bundi ----Petitioners-Accused Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 08/01/2025 1. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2024 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to apprise the Court about the current status of whereabouts of the accused- petitioner. 2. In compliance thereof, death certificates of accused- petitioner No.4 Jassa @ Jaswant Singh S/o Swaran Singh and accused-petitioner No.5 Singhara Singh S/o Natha Singh, have been submitted, which are take on record. 3. As a result, present criminal revision petition qua- accused- petitioner No.4 Jassa @ Jaswant Singh S/o Swaran Singh and qua- [2025:RJ-JP:1192] (2 of 4) [CRLR-632/2005] accused-petitioner No.5 Singhara Singh S/o Natha Singh stands abated. 4. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioners user Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment/order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bundi (Rajasthan), (for short the ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005, whereby the learned appellate Court acquitted the accused-petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 326, 326/149 IPC but maintained the conviction under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324 & 324/149, which was imposed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Keshorai Patan, District Bundi (Raj.) in Regular Criminal Case No.1008/03. The Learned appellate Court maintained the sentence in the aforesaid sections and extended the benefit of probation to the accused-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners are old aged persons. Counsel further submits that the matter is of the year 1988 and the present revision petition is pending since 2005, therefore, he makes only a limited prayer 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 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners. 7. Heard. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:1192] (3 of 4) [CRLR-632/2005] 8. 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 from hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in 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 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 them. 9. 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:1192] (4 of 4) [CRLR-632/2005] 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...” 10. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 1988 and this revision petition is pending since year 2005 and no adverse material is found against the petitioners. 11. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence(s) under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324 & 324/149 of I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /10