Arjun vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6521 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27515]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 626/2023

Arjun S/o Kamji Kharadi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhawanpura, Ps Sasar, Dist. Banswara. (Accused Lodge At Dist. Jail Banswara).

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


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Parikshit Nayak
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                        Order

29/08/2023

1. This revision petition is barred by limitation from 170 days.

An application under Section 5 of the Limiation Act has been filed.

The petitioner is in judicial custody. Considering the grounds and

reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the

revision petition is condoned.

2. The other defects pointed out by the office are waived.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition is being

heard and decided today itself.

4. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.09.2022

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal

[2023:RJ-JD:27515] (2 of 5) [CRLR-626/2023]

Appeal No.119/2022, whereby the learned appellate court

affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

06.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.111/2015; whereby the

petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of

the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3

years alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of 6

months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the complainant

Mrs. Nani D/o Bhairu submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at the

Police Station Sadar, District Banswara to the effect that on

12.07.2015, she was going to bring wheat from ration dealer. At

about 12.00 p.m., two persons, who had covered their faces with

a cloth, came on a motorcycle in front of the house of Kanji S/o

Kathu and snatched away the gold nose ring and fled away on the

motorcycle. On hearing her shouts, Kanji and other persons came

and tried to make a search of the accused persons, but it went in

vain. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.20/2015 for the

offence under Section 392 of the IPC was registered and after

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

petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Section

392 of the IPC.

6. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27515] (3 of 5) [CRLR-626/2023]

order to prove the offence, examined as many as 6 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 in defence. 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 in the manner stated

above vide judgment dated 06.02.2021. The learned appellate

court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the

ground of limitation vide judgment dated 06.09.2022. Hence, this

revision petition is filed before this court.

7. 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 2015. The petitioner was around 29 years of

age at that time. The petitioner has already suffered agony of

protracted trial for 8 years. He remained in custody for some time

during trial and now he is in judicial custody after passing of the

judgment in appeal. He is a poor person and the only bread-

earner in his family. 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:27515] (4 of 5) [CRLR-626/2023]

8. 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 during trial

and he is presently in judicial custody after passing of the

judgment in appeal.

9. 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.

10. 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 2015. 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 8 years and

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

He was around 29 years of age at the time of the incident. He is a

poor person. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27515] (5 of 5) [CRLR-626/2023]

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 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.

11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2021

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.111/2015 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal appeal No.119/2022 are

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial

court for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC 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 in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if

not wanted in any other case.

12. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application

seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if

any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 133-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)