Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Lal And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:42667) on 7 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42667]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 402/2015
1. Madhu Lal S/o Rataniya @ Kamadiya Kalabelia, R/o Devariya,
PS Kapasan, At present residing at Somarwalon Ka Khera, PS
Rasmi, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2. Rataniya @ Kamadiya S/o Bhagu Kalabelia, R/o Devariya, PS
Kapasan, At present residing at Somarwalon Ka Khera, PS
Rasmi, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sampati Choudhary
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 26.02.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.71/2014 by learned Addl. Session Judge, No.3, Chittorgarh
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld
the judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rasmi in Regular Criminal Case No.117/2011,
whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
present petitioners as under :
Offence U/s 392 IPC : Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
[2023:RJ-JD:42667] (2 of 4) [CRLR-402/2015]
Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2011 complainant
Smt. Kali submitted a report before PS Rasmi inter-alia alleging
therein that today at about 5:30 PM, when she was returning
home, two persons came on a motorcycle and snatched her
golden nose-ring 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
charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 394 IPC,
who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some
documents. 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 09.07.2013 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC instead
of Section 394 IPC.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2015.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
07.12.2023 received from the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail,
Udaipur in which it has been mentioned that petitioner No.1
[2023:RJ-JD:42667] (3 of 4) [CRLR-402/2015]
Madhu Lal has been released from jail on 18.09.2017 on
completion of his sentence. The said report is hereby taken on
record.
Since the petitioner No.1 has already been released from jail
after serving the sentence, the present revision petition is
dismissed qua petitioner No.1 Madhu Lal.
So far as accused-petitioner No.2-Rataniya @ Kamadiya is
concerned, at the threshold, learned counsel does not challenge
the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence
relates back to year 2011 and out of total sentence of three years'
R.I., the accused petitioner No.2 has already served thirteen
months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence
awarded to the petitioner No.2 for the aforesaid offence may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
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 2011 and
the petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of thirteen
months in custody, out of three years 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
petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for thirteen months,
[2023:RJ-JD:42667] (4 of 4) [CRLR-402/2015]
it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Section 392 IPC and affirmed by the appellate
court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner
No.2.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner No.2's conviction for offence under
Section 392 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine imposed by the courts below is also waived. The petitioner
No.2 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
200-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
