Vikas @ Vickey vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6088 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26366] (1 of 5) [CRLR-969/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 969/2023

Vikas @ Vickey S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Mojiya Khera Ps Chopta Dist. Sirsa (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Nohar)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 27.06.2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar,

District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2023, whereby the

learned appellate court while affirming the judgment dated

29.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case

No.721/2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under

Section 411 of the IPC, reduced the sentence for the said offence

from simple imprisonment of 3 years to simple imprisonment of 2

years and 6 months and also reduced the fine amount from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The sentence for default in payment of

fine was also reduced to 1 months' simple imprisonment from 3

months' simple imprisonment.

[2023:RJ-JD:26366] (2 of 5) [CRLR-969/2023]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 31.01.2016,

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Nohar received a

telephonic information that a boy has brought a motorcycle to the

house of Mohar Singh, resident of Maliya and is intending to sell it

at cheap rate, as such, it could be a stolen vehicle. In pursuance

of the above information, the SHO alongwith other police

personnel reached to the house of Mohar Singh and found a young

boy wandering there, who tried to hide on seeing the police party.

On being caught, he told his name to be Vikar Kumar @ Vicky and

that the Platina motorcycle lying there had been stolen by his

friend Monti from Elanabad and that he had brought the same

there with an intention to sell. The police seized the motorcycle

and on basis of the aforesaid seizure, registered FIR No.72/2016

for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC. After usual

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present

petitioner for the above offence.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner

for the offence under Section 411 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 offence, examined as many as 9

witnesses and exhibited 16 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 evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after

hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence

[2023:RJ-JD:26366] (3 of 5) [CRLR-969/2023]

Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence,

learned trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section

411 of the IPC vide judgment dated 29.06.2022. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly

allowed in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

27.06.2023. 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 incident in the present case

pertains to the year 2016. The petitioner was a young boy aged

around 19 years at the time of the incident. He is a poor person.

He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first

criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been

passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The

petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 7 years.

He remained in custody for some time during trial and now he is in

judicial custody 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 but does not refute the fact that it was

the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had

no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained

[2023:RJ-JD:26366] (4 of 5) [CRLR-969/2023]

behind the bars for some time during trial and he is presently in

judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal.

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

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 occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 2016. 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 7 years and

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

He was a young boy aged 19 years at the time of the incident. It

was the first criminal case registered against him. He has not

been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this

one. He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and

presently, he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in

appeal. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:26366] (5 of 5) [CRLR-969/2023]

Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, 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 is of the view that ends of

justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is

reduced to the one already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2022

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar,

District Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.721/2016 as

well as the judgment in appeal dated 27.06.2023 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District

Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2023 are affirmed but the

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the

offence under Section 411 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.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Stay application and

pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 210-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)