Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh @ Koki vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5876) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5876]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499/2006
Mahendra Singh @ Koki S/o Shri Surendra Singh Panwar, By
caste Rajput, R/o 10, Ramballi Nagar, Police Station Aerodrum,
Indore (Madhya Pradesh) (lodged at District Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 29/01/2025 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.05.2006 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.36/2005 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 16.11.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.32/2001, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 451 IPC One month's Fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
SI payment, further undergo 15
days' S.I.
Sec. 380 IPC One year's SI Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment, further undergone 15
days' S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:5876] (2 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006] Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2000 complainant Narain Lal lodged an FIR at Police Station Rajnagar to the effect that one month ago, a boy and a girl viz. Mahendra and Neetu has came there and rented a room from the complainant. On 28.06.2000 at about 5.00 P.M. when he came to his house then he came to know that they had stolen Rs.20,250/- alongwith some jewellery. Upon which, he tried to search them then he came to know that both the persons went into a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-30-C-0784. On this report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 451 & 380 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.05.2006. Hence, this revision petition.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:5876] (3 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006] At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2000 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about fifty four days, out of total sentence of one year's S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections Sections 451 & 380 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP 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.
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.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2000 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of fifty four days' incarceration, out of total sentence of one year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 451 and 380 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5876] (4 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006] Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 451 & 380 IPC the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court is maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 23-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)