Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Laxman Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36895) on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36895]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1330/2008
Laxman Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged 39 Years, R/o Village Devair,
Police Station Devair, District Rajsamand.
(Lodged in District Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is alive.
1.1. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the
above fact.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 22.10.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.160/2008,
whereby the said appeal was dismissed and judgment dated
27.07.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devgarh,
District Rajsamand (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’)
in Criminal Regular Case No.106/1998 was upheld to the extent of
conviction and amended the sentence.
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36895] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1330/2008]
2.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned trial court as
below :-
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
341 of IPC 1 Month’s Simple Rs.100/- 5 Day’s Additional
Imprisonment Simple
Imprisonment
323 of IPC 3 Months’ Simple Rs.500/- 10 Days’ Additional
Imprisonment Simple
Imprisonment
325 of IPC 2 Years’ Simple Rs.3000/- 1 Month’s Simple
Imprisonment Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
2.2. Vide judgment dated 22.10.2008, the learned appellate court
while maintaining the conviction awarded by the learned trial court
amended the sentenced as under :-
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
341 of IPC 15 Days’ Simple – –
Imprisonment
323 of IPC 1 Month’s Simple – –
Imprisonment
325 of IPC 6 Months' Simple Rs.5000/- 15 Days' Additional
Imprisonment Simple
Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
06.02.1998, a written report was lodged by complainant – Ram
Singh alleging that around 08:00 PM, when he was returning to
home, then the accused-petitioner obstructed his way, assaulted
him with stone and abused him. When Puran Singh, Kesar Singh,
Mahender Singh and his son Shanker Singh intervened, the
accused-petitioner fled from the scene. In that scuffle,
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36895] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1330/2008]
complainant – Ram Singh, Mahender Singh and Shan Kapila
sustained injuries.
3.1. On the said written report, the FIR No.12/1998 was
registered at Police Station Dewair, District Rajsamand against the
petitioner and investigation was commenced.
3.2. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon completion of the
trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court for the
offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC vide judgment
dated 27.07.2007. The conviction was was upheld by the learned
appellate court vide judgment dated 22.10.2008 with a
modification in the sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.471/2008.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of
a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36895] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1330/2008]
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
7.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
“84. … … … 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) :
“4. … … … 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…”
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36895] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1330/2008]
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.28
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)