Sohan @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4194 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014086]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 80/2023

Sohan @ Sonu S/o Chatra, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Banjara, R/o Gordhanpura, Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Bhilwara)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

08/05/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.06.2022

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Camp

Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.307/2018

whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 02.06.2017 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular

Case No. 199/2016; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for

the offence under Section 380 of IPC and has been sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-

and in default, he has been directed to further undergo six

months' of additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The defect of non-filing of the affidavit is over-ruled in view

of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody.

[2023/RJJD/014086] (2 of 5) [CRLR-80/2023]

3. The revision petition is time barred by 74 days. An

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed

seeking condonation of delay.

4. Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act.

5. It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars and

there was no one to pursue his cause and to render legal

assistance to him, therefore, he was deprived from filing the

petition within the stipulated period.

6. Considering the submissions advanced and the grounds

mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is

condoned.

7. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the

revision petition itself is being heard and decided today.

8. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 07.07.2016,

an FIR No.190/2016 came to be lodged at the Police Station

Bijoliya, District Bhilwara at the instance of the complainant -

Kishor alleging therein that on 06.07.2016, the accused

committed a theft of Rs.10,000/- and a gold Madaliya from the

house of his maternal grandmother. During investigation, the

accused-petitioner was arrested and in furtherance of the

information provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act, a gold Madaliya was recovered at his instance. After usual

[2023/RJJD/014086] (3 of 5) [CRLR-80/2023]

investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against him

under Section 380 of IPC.

9. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the

trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were

examined and 9 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 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 02.06.2017.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal

before the Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by

the trial court. Both these judgments are under assail before this

court in the instant revision petition.

10. Learned counsel Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan, 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 affirmed by the learned appellate court, but

at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the

year 2016. He had remained in jail for some time during the

proceedings of trial and thereafter, he is in custody since

09.06.2022, i.e. from the date of judgment passed in appeal.

Other than the present one, only one other case for the offence

under Section 454 of the IPC 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 on the date of incident and presently

[2023/RJJD/014086] (4 of 5) [CRLR-80/2023]

he is 34 years old. He is facing trial since the year 2016 and he

has languished in jail for more than 11 months, therefore, a

lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

11. 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 more than 11

months and only one other case for the offence under Section 454

of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

12. 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.

13. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true

that the petitioner is behind the bars since last 11 months. He has

been shown to be indulged in only one other case, which is for the

offence under Section 454 of the IPC. 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 more than 11 months'

incarceration out of the sentence of 3 years 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

[2023/RJJD/014086] (5 of 5) [CRLR-80/2023]

the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has

already undergone till date.

14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2017

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara in

Criminal Regular Case No. 199/2016 as well as the judgment of

appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3,

Camp Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal

No.307/2018 dated 09.06.2022 are affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded by the learned Trial 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 judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if

not wanted in any other case.

15. The revision petition is allowed in part.

16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

17. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 203-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)