Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harlal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/013163]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 461/2023
Harlal S/o Sh. Ishvar Ram, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Pichkarae Tibba, P.s. Sardarshar Dist. Churu, Rajasthan. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Budha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
02/05/2023
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under
Section 397/401 CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment
dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sardarshahar in Criminal appeal No.15/2022 whereby the
learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction dated
22.08.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar in
Criminal Regular Case No. 7/2015 (CIS No.108/2015) whereby the
petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
However, the learned appellate court reduced the sentence of
simple imprisonment of 1 year awarded by the trial court to simple
imprisonment of 6 months.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.10.2014,
an FIR came to be lodged at the instance of one Subhash Joshi
regarding theft of his Bolero vehicle. The Police registered the FIR
[2023/RJJD/013163] (2 of 4) [CRLR-461/2023]
No.511/2014. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was
arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against him under Sections 379 IPC.
3. 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 have been
examined. 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 court has
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 379 of the IPC
vide judgment dated 22.08.2022 and sentenced him to undergo 1
year's simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar, which while affirming the judgment
of conviction passed by the trial court, reduced the sentence to 6
months. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for
the petitioner do not wish to press the present revision petition in
respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court and preferred to make submission on the point of sentence
only. He submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the
present petitioner. It was his first case. No adverse remark has
been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgments.
The incident is of the year 2014 and he is facing the rigour of trial
since then. The petitioner has already remained in custody for a
period of about 5 months out of the sentence of 6 months'
[2023/RJJD/013163] (3 of 4) [CRLR-461/2023]
imprisonment as awarded by the appellate court, therefore, the
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and
he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has
remained behind the bars for around 5 months.
6. 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. As far as
the question of sentence in concerned, it is true that the petitioner
has remained behind the bars for about 5 months and the total
sentence awarded to him is 6 months only. He has not been
shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one.
Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal
reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the fact that the
case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner
has suffered nearly 5 months' incarceration out of the sentence of
6 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.
7. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar in Criminal Regular Case
[2023/RJJD/013163] (4 of 4) [CRLR-461/2023]
No. 7/2015 (CIS No.108/2015) as well as the judgment of appeal
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar in
Criminal appeal No.15/2022 dated 23.11.2022 are affirmed but
the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court and
reduced by the 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. The petitioner is in
custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted
in any other case.
8. The revision petition is allowed in part.
9. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are
disposed of.
10. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
178-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
