[2025:RJ-JP:6209] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1360/2018 Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Bhaguta Ram B/c Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dudiya, Police Station Gudha Gorji, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present In Distt. Jail, Jhunjhunu) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Dy.GA with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. GA, Subham Sain, AAAG & Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL JUDGMENT 12/02/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused-petitioner - Pramod Kumar against Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal Nos. 90/2018 (CIS No. 93/2018) (Pramod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan). The appellate court while allowing appeal filed by accused-petitioner qua judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu qua offence under Section 341 of I.P.C., set aside conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. but dismissed appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and [2025:RJ-JP:6209] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1360/2018] order of sentence dated 02.05.2018 passed by the trial court qua offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. So far as appeal qua judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2018 passed by the trial court for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. is concerned, same was dismissed and conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 354 of I.P.C. recorded by the trial court was affirmed but while modifying order of sentence passed by the trial court for offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., two years simple imprisonment awarded by the trial court to the accused-petitioner was reduced to one month simple imprisonment but sentence of fine of Rs.500/- imposed against him was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment instead of seven days simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of a written report submitted by complainant - Birbalram (P.W. 1) with respect to an incident occurred on 06.09.2007, wherein allegation of outraging modesty of complainant's daughter while she was going to field from their house, was levelled, F.I.R. No.282/2007 was registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 376/511 & 341 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 354 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 02.05.2018 convicting and sentencing him for the aforesaid offences, as stated above. [2025:RJ-JP:6209] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1360/2018] Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.05.2018, accused-petitioner preferred appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 30.07.2018, vide which while setting aside conviction and sentence of accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 341, his conviction and sentence qua offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. was affirmed but while affirming conviction of accused- petitioner for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., sentence awarded to him by the trial court for said offence has been modified, as stated above. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner qua his conviction under Section 323 & 354 of I.P.C. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefer to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2007 i.e. more than 17 years ago; accused-petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 57 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 17 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in judicial custody for a period of almost ten days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that [2025:RJ-JP:6209] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1360/2018] ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (Appeal [Cri] No. 278 of 1997) decided on 14.11.2003. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the report and submits that complainant has been informed about filing of present appeal. While opposing the revision petitions, he submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court as modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgment cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. [2025:RJ-JP:6209] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1360/2018] 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was 40 years old at the time of incident, has already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 17 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record. 11. 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…” 12. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, it will result into [2025:RJ-JP:6209] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1360/2018] reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that families of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 13. Consequently, the judgments dated 30.07.2018 and 02.05.2018 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 323 & 354 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence under section 354 of I.P.C. awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused- petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. However, while affirming the fine imposed by the courts below against accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., modified fine imposed by the appellate court for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. shall be maintained. 14. The revision petitions stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER /65