Purkha Ram vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24623)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Purkha Ram vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24623) on 29 May, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:24623]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 682/2004

Purkha Ram S/o Deda Ram R/o Village Kitnoriya, District Barmer.
(At present lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur)     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan                                               ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment 29/05/2024

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No.17/2002 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed in Cr. Case No.270/1996 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.1996, PW.4 - Ratan Lal sent a written report at Police Station Dhorimana alleging that the accused-petitioner Purkha Ram was appointed as an EDMC at village Bhuniya on 01.07.1965. At the time of appointment, the accused petitioner had submitted a forged transfer certificate of class 5th passed from Govt. Primary School, Kitnoria, Dhakon ka Tala, Chohtan. Upon enquiry, it was found that the accused- (Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24623] (2 of 3) [CRLR-682/2004] petitioner neither took admission nor studied in the aforesaid school. Upon said report, the Police registered a case against the accused-petitioner and commenced investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 471 IPC against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.05.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2004. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total sentence of six months' S.I., the accused petitioner has already served about 13 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- (Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:06 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:24623] (3 of 3) [CRLR-682/2004] petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 13 days in custody out of six months' of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 471 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 471 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 105-Rashi/-

(Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)