Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nirdosh Singh And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:42683) on 7 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42683]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 525/2003
1. Nirdosh Singh S/o Sh. Ram Bharose Lal, B/c Rajput, R/o
293/6, Central Area, Udaipur.
2. Ratan Lal S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal, B/c Prajapat, R/o House No.373,
Krishnapura, Udaipur.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Gehlot for
Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Mr. CP Marwan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/12/2023
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.13/2003 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
court') by which the appellate court partly allowed the petitioners'
appeal and instead of offence under Section 392 IPC, it convicted
the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo six months' RI each and imposed a
fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo one month's R.I.
Whereas, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') vide judgment
[2023:RJ-JD:42683] (2 of 4) [CRLR-525/2003]
dated 04.02.2003 passed in Cr. Case No.525/2001 convicted the
petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them
to undergo one year's RI and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI.
By this revision petition, the petitioners also challenge the
judgment of the trial court.
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2001 at about 9:15
PM, complainant Smt. Karuna Pathak submitted a report before
concerned Police Station to the effect that on 25.05.2001 in the
evening, when she and her husband were going on scooter, two
persons came on a motorcycle from behind and snatched her gold
chain and ran away. On this report, Police registered a case
against unknown persons for offence under Section 392 IPC and
started investigation. During investigation, the petitioners were
arrested by the Police.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges against the petitioners for offences under Section 392
IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the
accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No
witness was examined in defence.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 04.02.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and
sentenced them as aforesaid.
[2023:RJ-JD:42683] (3 of 4) [CRLR-525/2003]
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court.
The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide its
judgment dated 19.06.2003 and instead of convicting the
petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC, convicted them for
offence under Section 379 IPC and also reduced the sentence as
aforesaid. Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2001 and out of total
sentence of six months' R.I., the accused petitioners have already
served three months and eighteen days of imprisonment,
therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioners for
the offence under Section 379 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioners.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2001 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a period of three months
and eighteen days in custody, out of six months of total sentence,
so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
[2023:RJ-JD:42683] (4 of 4) [CRLR-525/2003]
petitioners have remained behind the bars for three months and
eighteen days, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded
by the appellate court for offence under Section 379 IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners while
maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the appellate court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section
379 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine
imposed by the appellate court is hereby maintained. Three
months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial
court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo
one months' RI. The petitioners are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
197-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
