Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh @ Bittu vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:418) on 3 January, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:418]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2000
Surendra Singh @ Bittu S/o Sh. Surayan Singh B/c Kamboj sikh,
R/o Ward No.7, Raisinghnagar, District (Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D.S.S.Kharlia
Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 03/01/2024
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 08.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal appeal No.75/1997 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.455/1995; whereby the learned Judge convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, he has been directed to further undergo two months' of additional rigorous imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2024 at 08:33:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (2 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000]
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.10.1995, an FIR No.424/1995 came to be lodged at the Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 403, 406 & 120-B of the IPC at the instance of the complainant - Satish Kumar alleging therein that on 15.08.1995, he instructed the petitioner, who was working as a driver to ply the Truck No.RJ13-C-1715 loaded with mustard from Raisinghnagar to Bharatpur. The petitioner did not return after unloading the truck at Bharatpur and instead thereof he went to Calcutta and further plied the truck for two months with someone else's goods. He returned back on 09.10.1995 and told him (complainant) that after deducting the expenditure, he received Rs.38,000/- for plying the truck. The complainant further stated that he asked the petitioner as to why he took the truck to Calcutta and plied the same without his permission. Upon this, the accused got agitated and on 12.10.1995, he alongwith his wife and child came to the office of the truck union and started abusing the complainant and denied to pay to Rs.38,000/- to him. Furthermore, he was threatened by the wife of the petitioner that he would falsely be implicated in the case of rape and for committing murder of child. After usual investigation, charge- sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar and no case was found against his wife.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. (Downloaded on 09/01/2024 at 08:33:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (3 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000] During the course of trial, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Section 406 of the IPC vide judgment dated 20.09.1997. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Both these judgments are under assail before this court in the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel Mr. R.D.S.S.Kharliya, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1995. He had remained in jail for more than 16 days after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court and about 4 days in police custody. No other criminal case has been reported against him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a weaker person of the society. He was 42 years of age on the date of incident and presently he is 70 years old. He is facing trial since the year 1995 and he has languished in jail for more than 20 days, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that (Downloaded on 09/01/2024 at 08:33:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:418] (4 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000] the petitioner has remained behind the bars for more than 20 days and no other except the present one has been registered against the petitioner.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
7. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true that the petitioner remained behind the bars for more than 20 days. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered more than 20 days out of sentence of 1 year imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.1997 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.455/1995 as well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal (Downloaded on 09/01/2024 at 08:33:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:418] (5 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000] appeal No.75/1997 dated 08.06.2000 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
11. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J 7-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 09/01/2024 at 08:33:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)