[2025:RJ-JP:31746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1130/2006 1. Mohan S/o Shri Sita Ram, aged about 27 years, 2. Jagdish S/o Shri Bhura Ram, aged about 28 years, R/o Near Meena Petrol Pump, Bye-pass Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Raghav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 13/08/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2006. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.06.2006, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal Nos.22/2006 & 24/2006, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 27.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots) Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.408/2000 [290/97], whereby the revisionist-petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:31746] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1130/2006] Under Section 377 IPC:_ Four years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for three months ordinary additional imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.10.2006 on the prayer made in the criminal revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period of 4 months and 2 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:31746] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1130/2006] 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. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 14