[2025:RJ-JP:14927] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 911/2004 Vijay Singh @ Jija S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Pidawa, Distt. Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 02/04/2025 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Section(s) 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.09.2004 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A. Act Cases), Jhalawar, Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2004, whereby the judgment dated 11.06.2004 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Regular Criminal Case No.625/2003, convicting the revisionist-petitioner for the offences punishable under Section(s) 379 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one and a half years simple imprisonment with fine, was upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was suspended by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.11.2004. Counsel makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the [2025:RJ-JP:14927] (2 of 3) [CRLR-911/2004] sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgments passed by the Courts below. 5. 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...” 6. Since the conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner by the learned Trial Court has been confirmed by the learned [2025:RJ-JP:14927] (3 of 3) [CRLR-911/2004] Appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 7. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2003 and this revision petition has been pending since year 2004. 8. Taking into consideration nature of offences under which the petitioner has been convicted, custody period of the petitioner i.e. more than two months, age of the petitioner and the incident took place about 22 years ago, this Court deems it just and proper that interest of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the 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(s) under Section(s) 379 I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody, thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. All Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /3