Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjha @ Fingi vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 August, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:32008]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 645/2022
Ranjha @ Fingi S/o Asgar Ali, Aged About 33 Years, Chakk 3
Shpd, P.s. Suratgarh Sadar, Dist. Sriganganagar. (Presently
Lodged At Dist. Jail, Sriganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF ORDER ::: 31/08/2023
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 25.05.2022 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, Sri
Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.08/2021 whereby the learned
appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Case No.409/2011 (C.I.S. No.2878/2014) by which the
learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner for the offence under
Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and convicted him to undergo
sentence one year's SI along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default to further undergo one month's SI.
[2023:RJ-JD:32008] (2 of 5) [CRLR-645/2022]
2. Vide order dated 28.06.2022, the petitioner was directed to
appear before this Court and mark his presence but he failed to do
so. Today, he is present in person, his presence is marked.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that Sri Balkaran Singh,
ASI, posted at the Police Station Suratgarh was assigned the duty
of patrolinig. On 19.05.2011 he was on duty at about 6:15 p.m.
Constable Gulab Singh and driver Jaswant Singh, received a secret
information that a young boy, standing near the corner of Chak 3,
SHPD, was having a pistol. Upon the said information, when the
patrol party reached near the corner of Chak 3, SHPD, they saw a
person standing there in a suspicious position, who was trying to
hide himself. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name to be Ranjha @
Fingi and when search was conducted, a pistol was found in his
pant for which he was not having licence. On the basis of above,
an FIR No.105/2011 at the Police Station Sadar, Suratgarh was
registered against the petitioner under Section 3/25 of the Arms
Act. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted
against him under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined
and 17 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was
sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner
and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge
has convicted the accused for offence under Section 3/25 Arms
[2023:RJ-JD:32008] (3 of 5) [CRLR-645/2022]
Act vide judgment dated 22.02.2021 and sentenced him to
undergo one year's SI with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to
further undergo one month's SI. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court which
was partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner
was modified and he was ordered to undergo six months' SI and
the fine and default sentence were mainted. Both these judgments
are under assail before this court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Kr. Gupta, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and modified by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 2011. He had remained in jail for about one month during
the proceedings of trial. No other case has been reported against
him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a weaker person of
the society. He was a young boy and is facing trial since the year
2011 and he has languished in jail for about a month, therefore, a
lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about a month
and except the present one no other case has been registered
against him.
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,
[2023:RJ-JD:32008] (4 of 5) [CRLR-645/2022]
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 sentence is concerned, the
petitioner remained in jail for a month and he is facing the rigor of
trial since year 2011. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed
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 circumstances of the case,
age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the
case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner
has suffered about a month's incarceration out of the sentence of
six months imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced
financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court
deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of
imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
22.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case
No.409/2011 and the judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Appeal No.08/2021 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has
undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the
interest of justice, however, the amount of fine i.e. Rs.5,000/-
[2023:RJ-JD:32008] (5 of 5) [CRLR-645/2022]
imposed by the trial Court is maintained. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
8.Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
