Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Parmanand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Parmanand vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 20, 1989
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762609

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1988
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 394--Sentence--Accused 21 years old--Held, sentence of 2 years is reduced to 8 months with fine of Rs. 200/ .;Revision Partly Allowed -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parmanand

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1989WLN(UC)115

Excerpt

penal code - section 394--sentence--accused 21 years old--held, sentence of 2 years is reduced to 8 months with fine of rs. 200/ .;revision partly allowed - a.k. mathur, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. i have also gone through the record.2. the accused has been convicted under section 394, ipc and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment,3. learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the conviction of the petitioner and rightly so for the reason that the accused was caught red handed after snatching the chain. learned counsel only presses the question of awarding of sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment to the petitioner. learned counsel submits that the accused is of less than 21 years, of age, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of awarding sentence.4. looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, i reduce the sentence of the accused petitioner under section 394 ipc, from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.5. the revision petition is disposed of as indicated above.

Full Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the record.

2. The accused has been convicted under Section 394, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the conviction of the petitioner and rightly so for the reason that the accused was caught red handed after snatching the chain. Learned counsel only presses the question of awarding of sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment to the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the accused is of less than 21 years, of age, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of awarding sentence.

4. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, I reduce the sentence of the accused petitioner under Section 394 IPC, from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.

5. The revision petition is disposed of as indicated above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial