Veena vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32674) on 24 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Veena vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32674) on 24 July, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:32674]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 138/2013

Veena W/o Devendra @ Balvinder Singh B/c Arora R/o Sureshiya
Hanumangarh .
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s)               :     Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

24/07/2025

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the

judgment dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh, in

Criminal Appeal No.11/2010, whereby the learned Appellate Court

partly allowed the appeal by acquitting her under Section 292 IPC

and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

09.03.2010 for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the PITA Act

rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.181/2006 (108/2006).

2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court had

convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 279 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the

PITA Act. On each count, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a term of one year, along with a fine of

₹200/-; in default of payment of the said fine, she was directed to

(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32674] (2 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013]

further undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of

one month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits

that he does not press the present revision petition insofar as it

pertains to the finding of conviction. The challenge is confined only

to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the

occurrence in question dates back to the year 2005 and the

petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of

approximately two months. It is contended that no fruitful purpose

would be served by sending the petitioner back to serve the

remainder of the sentence, especially considering the passage of

time, the nature of the offence, and the petitioner’s antecedents.

It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view be taken and the

sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be suitably reduced to

the period already undergone.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. I have also

perused the impugned orders and the materials available on

record.

5. So far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, in view

of the fair concession made by the learned counsel, and upon a

perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the

concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. There

appears to be no patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation

of evidence warranting interference in the conclusion as to guilt.

Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 3, 4,

(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32674] (3 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013]

5 & 7 under the PITA Act, as recorded by the learned trial Court

and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby upheld and

maintained.

6. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, it is not disputed

that the incident in question occurred in the year 2005 and the

petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a considerable

duration during the course of trial and post-conviction–

approximately two months. Additionally, it is brought to the notice

of the Court that the petitioner is now aged and is a person of

limited financial means. She has suffered the ordeal of a

prolonged litigation extending over two decades, thereby

undergoing immense mental agony and social distress.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the

mitigating circumstances, including the age and socio-economic

status of the petitioner, the length of the pendency of proceedings,

the fact that she has already undergone part of the custodial

sentence, and more particularly the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West

Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678, and Alister Anthony Pareira v.

State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the ends of justice

would be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment is

reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner

under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the PITA Act as recorded by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal

Regular Case No.181/2006 (108/2006), and affirmed the

(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32674] (4 of 4) [CRLR-138/2013]

judgment dated 03.09.2012 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.11/2010, the

sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby modified. It is

ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall stand reduced to

the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine

imposed shall remain intact. In the event of non-payment of fine,

the petitioner shall be liable to undergo the default sentence as

originally awarded.

9. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent

indicated above.

10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial

Court forthwith for necessary compliance.

11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J
8-Mamta/-

(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:30:11 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)