Bhagirath vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6226 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26859]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 792/2019

Bhagirath S/o Bharmal, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Godaro Ki Dhani, Bhinyasar, Police Station Bhojasar, District Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subhash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved

of the judgment dated 28.05.2019 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal

Appeal No.40/2016, dismissing the appeal preferred against the

judgment dated 05.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in

Criminal Original Case No.118/2011, whereby he was convicted

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

each count, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years

alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month.

2. The petitioner is present in person to mark his attendance.

He is duly identified by his counsel. His attendance is marked.

[2023:RJ-JD:26859] (2 of 6) [CRLR-792/2019]

3. Looking to the nature of the offences involved in the matter,

with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

revision petition is heard finally and decided today itself.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 24.11.2010,

complainant Satyaprakash submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at

the Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur to the effect that his

brother-in-law Rawat Ram Choudhary, resident of Saran Nagar,

Jodhpur had gone to Bangkok on 23.11.2010 at 12.30 p.m. and

his house was locked. His acquaintance Mahipal had been asked

to sleep there during night. When he reached there to sleep at

12.15 a.m., the main gate was unlocked and the car parked in the

porch was not there. Ignoring these facts, he went to sleep and

when he woke up at 11.30 a.m. in the morning, he noticed that

gate in porch was unlocked and the household articles were

scattered. He informed the complainant, upon which, he reached

there and found that the almirahs had been emptied and the a lot

of expensive things including LCD TV, CD Player, Laptop, Trolley

Bags etc. had been stolen. A WagonR car had also been stolen.

On the aforesaid report, FIR No.451/2010 was registered and after

usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present

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

5. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

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

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

[2023:RJ-JD:26859] (3 of 6) [CRLR-792/2019]

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

examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 27 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

from defence side. Then, after hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous

appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the

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

judgment dated 05.11.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of

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

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 28.05.2019 affirming

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

petition is filed before this court.

6. 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 2010. The offences involved are trespassing

and theft. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted

trial of 13 years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial

court is 3 years' simple imprisonment. He has remained in

custody for 1 year 8 months and 15 days during trial and for 10

months and 15 days during the pendency of the appeal and

thereafter for some time after filing of the instant revision petition.

[2023:RJ-JD:26859] (4 of 6) [CRLR-792/2019]

He had no criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case

registered against him. He is a poor person. With these

submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,

the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the

period already undergone.

7. 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 that he

has remained behind the bars for significant period.

8. 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.

9. 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 2010 and involves the offences of house trespassing and

theft. The trial took 2 years to culminate and the appeal took

further 7 years in decision. Thereafter, this revision petition is

pending before this court for last 4 years. 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 13 years and has been in the corridors of the court for

[2023:RJ-JD:26859] (5 of 6) [CRLR-792/2019]

this prolonged period. The sentence awarded by the court below

is 3 years' simple imprisonment. On a perusal of the record, it is

revealing that he has already remain behind the bars for more

than 2 years and 10 months. It was the first criminal case

registered against the petitioner. He is a poor person. 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

petitioner, his criminal antecedent, period of incarceration, 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 sentences imposed upon the

petitioner for each count are reduced to the one already

undergone by him.

10. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 05.11.2012

passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case No.118/2011

as well as the judgment in appeal dated 28.05.2019 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in

Criminal Appeal No.40/2016 are affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e.

[2023:RJ-JD:26859] (6 of 6) [CRLR-792/2019]

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 on

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

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

if any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 155-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)