Naru Lal @ Nariya vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 18812 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 354/2017

Naru Lal @ Nariya S/o Shri Paru Nath @ Pariya, By Caste Kalbeliya, Resident Of Bhurwada, Railmagra Police Station, District Rajsamand.

(Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

10/12/2021

Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under

Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated

20.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women

Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'),

whereby learned appellate Court, while rejecting the appeal

preferred by petitioner, affirmed judgment dated 20.12.2010

passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar,

District Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court). The learned trial

Court, vide judgment dated 20.12.2010, convicted the accused-

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380

IPC and sentenced him as under:-

                                            (2 of 4)                     [CRLR-354/2017]


S.No. Section          Simple                     Fine (Rs.) In default of
                                                             payment of fine
                       Imprisonment
                                                             to further
                                                             undergo

1     454 IPC          Seven years                500/-             3 month'
                                                                    additional S.I.

2.    380 IPC          Three years                200/-             1 month'
                                                                    additional S.I.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In brief, facts of the case are that on 14.07.2004, a written

report was presented by complainant Shantilal Suthar before

Police Station Kherada District Udaipur, alleging, inter alia, that in

the afternoon at 02.00 p.m., when he came back his home, chain

was put on the inside from the house; upon which, he shouted

loudly then, several persons gathered there; thereafter he jumped

inside the house of Kishanlal and opened the chain and entered

into his house. He came to know that the accused have stolen the

ornaments and cash of Rs.4000/-by breaking the lock of petty

box. On the basis of that report, FIR No.87/2004 came to be

registered at Kheroda Police Station District Udaipur for the

offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. After usual

investigation, police filed charge-sheet against petitioner and co-

accused Joru Lal @ Joriya. The learned trial Court took cognizance

and framed charges against petitioner and co-accused Jorulal for

the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 IPC and on

denial, put them to trial.

In order to prove charge against accused persons,

prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited fourteen

(3 of 4) [CRLR-354/2017]

documents vide Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. Subsequently, statements of

accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Learned trial Court, then, proceeded to hear final arguments and

after appreciation of evidence and material available on record by

its verdict dated 20.12.2010 convicted and sentenced the

petitioner as aforesaid.

Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 20.12.2010, petitioner

approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate

Court made sincere endeavour to re-appreciate the evidence

available on record. After scrutinizing the entire evidence and

other materials available on record, the learned appellate Court

fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial

Court, which entailed dismissal of the appeal. It is, in that

background, petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this

Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset does not

challenge conviction of the accused but prays that keeping in view

the fact that petitioner Naru Lal @ Nariya has already suffered

sentence of six years and more than eight months, out of the total

maximum sentence of seven years, therefore, taking into account

the peculiar facts of the case, the accused may kindly be released

taking into account the period he has already undergone.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has

urged that both the Courts below have recorded finding against

accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to release the

accused on the basis of sentences already served by him.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-354/2017]

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the

impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned through the entire

record.

The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in this

revision revision petition, lies in narrow compass inasmuch as

learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned challenge to the

indictment and conviction of the petitioner for offences under

Sections 454 and 380 IPC. There remains no quarrel that incident

is of 2004 and since then more than one and half decades have

elapsed and furthermore Naru Lal @ Nariya has already suffered

sentence of six years and more than eight months, out of the total

sentence of seven years, therefore, in my considered opinion, the

ends of justice would be served by ordering release of the accused

on the ground of maximum sentences he has already undergone.

The revision petition thus deserves to be and is hereby

accepted. While upholding the conviction of petitioner, as

recorded by learned Courts below, the accused-petitioner is

ordered to be released from prison forthwith, as he has suffered

maximum period of sentences awarded to him.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 104-Bharti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)