Radheshyam vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6015 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26395]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1036/2023

Radheshyam S/o Sh. Prithviraj, Aged About 33 Years, Bhat Mohalla, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sriganganagar).

                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Durgesh Khatri
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

18/08/2023

1. The instant criminal revision petition i barred by limitation

from 340 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act has been filed.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody. It is averred in the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that due to non-

communication between the counsel and the petitioner, delay was

occasioned in filing the revision petition. Considering the grounds

and reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The same be

treated to be within limitation.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the revision petition itself is being heard and decided at this stage.

[2023:RJ-JD:26395] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1036/2023]

4. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 04.06.2022

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal appeal No.4/2017, whereby the learned

appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.179/2015; whereby the

petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Offence   for        which Sentence of imprisonment,                  fine   and
convicted                  default sentence

Section 380 of the IPC Simple imprisonment of 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment Section 457 of the IPC Simple imprisonment of 1 year alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision petition are that on

14.03.2015 complainant Krishna Kumar submitted a written report

to the SHO, Police Station, Purani Aabadi to the effect that he was

the Pujari of Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple, Purani Aabadi, Sri

Ganagnagar. On 13.03.2015 at about 11.00 p.m. he locked and

bolted the gates of the temple and went to rest. At about 02.00

a.m. he heard some sound coming from the worship place near

idols, upon which he switched on the lights and found that a boy

named Radheyshyam Bhat, who was habitual of taking drugs and

[2023:RJ-JD:26395] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1036/2023]

was wandering near the temple for last few days, was taking the

money box of the temple. Before the complainant could catch

him, he ran away. There was a sum of around Rs.300-400 in the

box. The lock was broken and an iron rod was lying there. On the

basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.86/2015 was registered and

after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against

the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of

the IPC.

6. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC

and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the

course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences,

examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents.

The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution

allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the

allegations and claimed to be innocent. No witness was examined

in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and

the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of

the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the

accused for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC vide

judgment dated 09.12.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment of

conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 04.06.2022 affirming

the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision

petition is filed before this court.

[2023:RJ-JD:26395] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1036/2023]

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at

some length, submits that he does not wish to assail the judgment

of conviction and wants to press only the alternative prayer of

reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits

that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2015.

The petitioner was 23 years of age at that time. He belongs to a

poor family and is the only bread-earner in the house. He has

already suffered agony of protracted trial for 8 years. He remained

in custody for some time during trial and presently he is in judicial

custody. With these submissions, he prays that by taking a

lenient view, the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

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

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that he has

remained behind the bars for some time during trial and he is

presently in judicial custody.

9. 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

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

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

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

[2023:RJ-JD:26395] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1036/2023]

the year 2015. 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 8 years and

has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

He was 23 years at the time of the incident. The learned trial

court has awarded maximum sentence of 1 year to him. He has

remained incarcerated for some time during trial and presently, he

is in judicial custody. 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, age of appellant, his status in the

society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go

through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice

would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner for each

count is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2016

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar in

Criminal Case No.179/2015 as well as the judgment in appeal

dated 04.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal appeal No.04/2017 are

[2023:RJ-JD:26395] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1036/2023]

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial

court for each count, i.e. Section 457 and 380 of the IPC, is

modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioner has

undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the

interest of justice. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall

be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

12. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application for

suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if any, are

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 280-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)