Sandeep vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27678)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6242 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27678]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1075/2002

Sandeep S/o Sajjan Raj, by caste Jain Oswal, resident of Chopasani Housing Board, Section 25, House No.25, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section

411 of the IPC vide judgment dated 11.09.2001 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Original Case

No.422/1999 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of

two years alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment

of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, he preferred an appeal

bearing No.21/2002, which was disposed of by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Pali vide judgment dated 26.08.2002,

whereby the learned appellate court remanded the matter back to

the trial court for passing a fresh judgment after deciding the

issue whether the motorcycle recovered from the possession of

the petitioner was the motorcycle of the complainant or not.

Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has

[2023:RJ-JD:27678] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1075/2002]

preferred the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of

the IPC.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the complainant

Kamal Kishore submitted a written report regarding theft of his

motorcycle Bajaj Caliber bearing Registration No.RJ22-3M-2625 on

10.09.1999. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.378/1999 was

registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of

the IPC.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in

order to prove the offencs, examined as many as 5 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. 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 offence under Section 411 of the IPC

instead of Section 379 of the IPC and sentenced him as stated

above vide judgment dated 11.09.2001. On the appeal preferred

by the petitioner, the learned appellate court remanded the matter

[2023:RJ-JD:27678] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1075/2002]

back to the trial court vide judgment dated 26.08.2002. Hence,

this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. This court vide order dated 08.01.2003 stayed the

proceedings before the trial court upon remand and since then the

said stay order is continuing.

5. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the matter

pertains to the year 1999 and a period of nearly 24 years has

already elapsed, therefore, 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 though charge against the petitioner was framed for the

offence under Section 379 of the IPC, but after full-fledged trial,

the learned trial court did not find the said offence proved and

held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 411 of the

IPC. However, on the point of sentence, the learned trial court

should have exercised leniency as the sentence of imprisonment of

two years awarded to the petitioner seems harsher looking to the

nature of offence, young age of the petitioner and the fact that it

was the first criminal case registered against him and he is not a

habitual offender. In addition to the above, now a period of 24

years has lapsed after registration of the case and much misery

has already been inflicted upon him. He has remained in custody

for 21 days during trial and pendency of appeal. With these

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

[2023:RJ-JD:27678] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1075/2002]

the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the

period already undergone.

6. 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 some time.

7. 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,

this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

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

it is worthwhile to note that the matter pertains to the year 1999.

Though the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section

379 of the IPC, the learned trial court itself did not find him guilty

for the said offence and instead convicted him for the offence

under Section 411 of the IPC. This revision petition is pending

before this court since the year 2002 and the proceedings of the

trial court have been stayed on remand. The submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner would not

like recommencement of the trial proceedings if this court is

inclined to show leniency on the point of sentence. This court has

pondered over the submissions made on the point of reduction of

sentence. The petitioner was a young boy aged 23 years at the

time of incident and at present he is 47 years of age. It was the

[2023:RJ-JD:27678] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1075/2002]

first criminal case registered against him and he had no criminal

antecedents. 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 24 years and

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

The sentence awarded by the court below is 2 years' rigorous

imprisonment. On a perusal of the record, it is revealing that he

has already remain behind the bars for more than 20 days. 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 sentence imposed upon the

petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2001

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal

Original Case No.422/1999 is affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under

[2023:RJ-JD:27678] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1075/2002]

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 on bail.

He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

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

if any, are disposed of.

11. The record be returned to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 5-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)