// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.269/1995 Purushottam S/o Shri Birda Ram & Another ...accused-petitioners Versus The State of Rajasthan ...non-petitioner Date of Judgment ::: 29th January 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for accused-petitioners Smt. Nirmala Sharma, P.P., for the State #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the incident relates to the year 1990 and the petitioners have already remained in jail for about thirty-one days, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment of four months awarded by the appellate court may be reduced to a period of sentence already undergone by them and the amount of fine of Rs.5,00/- may be enhanced reasonably. The order of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts of the case in detail. The trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 30.07.1994, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners under Section 377, IPC, to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional rigorous // 2 // imprisonment. The appellate court, while affirming the order of conviction passed by the trial court, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to four months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. There is no dispute in between both the parties that the petitioners have already remained in jail for thirty-one days in two terms; in first term for 17 days from 28.01.1990 to 13.02.1990 i.e. during investigation/trial and, in second term for 14 days from 30.05.1995 to 12.06.1995 i.e. on affirming their conviction by the appellate court. The offence relates to the year 1990. As per the arrest memos of the accused-petitioners Exhibit-P-4 and Exhibit-P-5, both the accused-petitioners were 16 years of age on the date of their arrest, therefore, on the date of occurrence they were of tender age. The petitioners have already faced trial and mental agony for last about seventeen years, therefore, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice would meet in case the sentence of 4 months RI awarded against them by the appellate court is reduced to 31 days imprisonment, the period of imprisonment already undergone by them, with enhancement of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the appellate court against the accused-petitioners is reduced from 4 months to 31 days SI, the period already undergone by them, with enhancement of fine to Rs.2500/- to be paid by each of accused-petitioners. Three months time is allowed to the accused-petitioners to deposit the said amount of fine in the trial court, failing which they will have to undergo 15 // 3 // days simple imprisonment. After deposit of the amount of fine, it will be paid by the trial court to the victim after notice to him. The petitioners are on bail, they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. On failure to deposit the amount of fine, the trial court is directed to ensure that the appellants have suffered the sentence of default clause. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// S.No.S-H-2