Sukhcharan Singh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27575)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6231 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27575]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1055/2003

Sukhcharan Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, resident of Morjand Sikhan, Police Station Sangria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajathan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Nehra For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 03.11.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria,

District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.6/2003, whereby the

learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 02.09.2003 passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria in Criminal Regular Case

No.235/2000; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the

offence 3/25 (1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment of one year alongwith a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo

simple imprisonment of one month.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 29.03.2000,

[2023:RJ-JD:27575] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1055/2003]

Santram, ASI, Buta Singh, HC and Prem Kumar, FC, of Police

Station Sangaria departed from the Police Station and while doing

patrolling, at 11.30 a.m., they noticed one person sitting on the

bridge at 13 A.M.P. Ki Puliya, Near Rohi Morjand Sikhan, who tried

to run away seeing the police party. Upon being caught, he told

his name to be Sukhcharan Singh S/o Gurdev Singh and on

search, a 12 bore pistol was found in his possession, for which he

could not produce any licence. The pistol was sezied and the

petitioner was arrested. An FIR was registered and after usual

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner

for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner

for the above offence under Section 3/25 (1B)(a) of the Indian

Arms Act 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 various

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. One witness

was examined 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 and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated

02.09.2003 in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

[2023:RJ-JD:27575] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1055/2003]

03.11.2003 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 2000. The petitioner has already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 23 years. He remained in custody for 3

days during trial and for 10 days after passing of the judgment in

appeal. He is on bail for last 20 years and during this period his

conduct has been good. 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 the

case is old one and that the petitioner has remained behind the

bars for some time during trial and 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:27575] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1055/2003]

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 2000, in which a pistol was recovered from the

possession of the petitioner. It took 3 years in trial and in decision

of appeal and thereafter, this revision petition is pending before

this court since the year 2003. 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 23 years and has been in the corridors of the court for

this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for 13 days

during trial and after decision of appeal. He is on bail for last 20

years and is living peacefully as no report contrary to that has

been received by this court. The reformative theory is in vogue in

our country and apparently, the petitioner has been reformed in

this prolonged period and no fruitful purpose would be served by

sending him back to jail to serve the remaining sentence. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27575] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1055/2003]

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 02.09.2003

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sangaria in Criminal Regular Case No.235/2000 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 03.11.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in

Criminal appeal No.6/2003 are affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under

Section 3/25 (1B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 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, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 18-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)