Jeevan Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:25851)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5803 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25851]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 370/2001

Jeevan Ram S/o Shri Hardas, by caste Bishnoi, resident of Village Matoda, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Thana Ram Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

11/08/2023

1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Osian vide judgment dated 27.09.2000 passed

in Criminal Case No.426/1994 in the following manner :-

Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence convicted Section 120-B IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment Section 467 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month Section 468 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month

Being aggrieved of aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an

appeal, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.4/2001,

whereby the learned appellate court while acquitting him from the

offences under Sections 120-B and 468 of the IPC, affirmed his

conviction under Section 467 of the IPC and maintained the

[2023:RJ-JD:25851] (2 of 5) [CRLR-370/2001]

sentence awarded for the said offence. Being aggrieved of the

aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has preferred the instant

criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the IPC.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 25.07.1991

complainant Tulchha Ram, resident of Matoda submitted a typed

report at the Police Station Osian to the effect that the his brother

Chaina Ram had expired on 20.04.1984, whereafter the

complainant being his brother was in possession of his property.

On 14.07.1991 he came to know that a forged adoption deed had

been registered showing one Goparam as adopted son of the

deceased. An allegation was levelled against the present petitioner

that he had identified the person who impersonated the deceased

Chainram when the forged adoption deed was prepared.

Allegations were levelled against other persons too regarding

participating in the conspiracy. Upon the aforesaid report, FIR

No.66/1991 was registered and after usual investigation, a

charge-sheet was submitted in the competent court.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner

and other persons and after full-fledged trial, passed the

impugned judgment dated 27.09.2000, whereby the petitioner

was convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appeal

preferred against the aforesaid judgment came to be partly

allowed in the manner that while the petitioner was acquitted from

the offences under Sections 120-B and 468 of the IPC, his

[2023:RJ-JD:25851] (3 of 5) [CRLR-370/2001]

conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 467 of the

IPC was maintained. Hence, this revision petition is filed before

this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court. He submits that the case was initiated in the year

1991. Much time has passed by since then. During the trial itself,

the parties arrived at a compromise. It was the first criminal case

registered against the petitioner. No adverse remark has been

passed over the conduct of the petitioner except the impugned

judgment. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 32

years. He has remained in custody for some time after passing of

the judgment in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel

prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact

that he has remained behind the bars for some time.

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

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

[2023:RJ-JD:25851] (4 of 5) [CRLR-370/2001]

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1991.

The parties arrived at a compromise during the trial itself. The

right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable

and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The

petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spanning over a period of more than 32 years and has been in the

corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He remained

incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment in

appeal. It was the first criminal case registered against him. No

adverse remarks have been made over his conduct except the

impugned judgment. The petitioner is living peacefully since last

32 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this

court. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner

deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves

the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this

regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made 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 facts and circumstances of the case,

the fact of compromise, age of petitioner, his criminal

antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced

financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court

[2023:RJ-JD:25851] (5 of 5) [CRLR-370/2001]

is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence

imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2000

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Osian in Criminal

Regular Case No.426/1993 as well as the judgment in appeal

dated 03.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.4/2001 are affirmed

but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the

offence under Section 467 of the IPC, is modified to the extent

that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient

and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is on

bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 101-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)