Umaid Singh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27650)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6228 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27650]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1057/2003

Umaid Singh S/o Jog Singh, by caste Rana Rajput, resident of Sitodai, District Jaisalmer

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

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 07.08.2003 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.16/2003, dismissing the

appeal preferred against the judgment dated 07.05.2003 passed

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal

Original Case No.288/2002, 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 1 year

alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 days.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant

Badalpuri submitted a report at the Police Station Jaisalmer to the

[2023:RJ-JD:27650] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1057/2003]

effect that his house is situated at Maharana Pratap Marg, Gandhi

Colony. On 18.07.2002 in the night, all the family members were

sleeping on roof. All the doors had been locked from inside and

the main gate had also been locked. During the night some

unknown thief burgled into the house and stole cash amounting to

Rs.35200/-, gold ornaments weighing 2.5 tola and silver

ornaments weighing 30-35 tola. The complainant found out about

the same in the morning at about 05.00 a.m. On the aforesaid

report, FIR No.165/2002 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.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the above offences 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 12 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

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 07.05.2003. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

[2023:RJ-JD:27650] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1057/2003]

07.08.2003 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court.

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 2002. The offences involved are trespassing

and theft. The petitioner was a young man at that time. He has

already suffered agony of protracted trial of 21 years. The

maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is simple

imprisonment of 1 year. He has remained in custody for

significant during trial, during the pendency of the appeal and

during the pendency of this revision petition. 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.

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

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

petitioner 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:27650] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1057/2003]

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 2002 and involves the offences of house trespassing and

theft. This revision petition is pending before this court for last 20

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 21 years and has been in the

corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The sentence

awarded by the court below is 1 year's simple imprisonment for

each count. The petitioner has remained incarcerated for some

time during trial, during appeal and after decision of the appeal.

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, 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27650] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1057/2003]

imposed upon the petitioner for each count are reduced to the one

already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2003

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in

Criminal Original Case No.288/2002 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.16/2003 are 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 on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds

are discharged.

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

if any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 18-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)