Vikas Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6731 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27912]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1112/2023

Vikas Kumar S/o Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 25 Years, Nejiya Kheda, P.s. Nathusari, Chopta, (Haryana). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner).

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


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Nishit Shah
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

02/09/2023

1. The criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 349

days. The petitioner is in custody. The revision petition has been

filed by a counsel appointed by the Rajasthan High Court Legal

Services Committee. An application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has been filed. For the grounds and reasons

mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in

filing the revision petition is condoned. The revision petition be

treated to be filed within limitation.

2. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved

of the judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in

Criminal Appeal No.88/2018, dismissing the appeal preferred

against the judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned

[2023:RJ-JD:27912] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1112/2023]

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Original

Case No.687/2017, whereby he was convicted for the offences

under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and for each count,

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years alongwith a

fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to

undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.

3. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant

Shatrughn Sankhi submitted a report at the Police Station Nohar

to the effect that he is having a mobile shop in the Sindhi Bazar,

Nohar. In the intervening night of 04.04.2017-05.04.2017, some

unknown person broke the locks of his shop and stole the mobile

phones listed in the report. On the aforesaid report, FIR

No.174/2017 was registered and after usual investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the

offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in

order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses

and exhibited 21 documents. The accused, upon being confronted

with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section

313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. One

document was exhibited from defence side. Then, after hearing

the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel

[2023:RJ-JD:27912] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1112/2023]

and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial

court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 457 and

380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 05.07.2018. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

10.06.2022 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court.

Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

5. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case

pertains to the year 2017. The offences involved are trespassing

and theft. The petitioner was a young boy aged 19 years at the

time of the incident. He has already suffered agony of protracted

trial for 6 years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial

court is simple imprisonment of 3 years. He has already remained

in custody for a period of more than 2 years and 1 month. He is

a poor person. With these submissions, learned counsel prays

that by taking a lenient view, the sentences awarded to the

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the

petitioner has remained behind the bars for significant time.

[2023:RJ-JD:27912] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1112/2023]

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

and affirmed by the appellate court, 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 quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 2017 and involves the offences of house trespassing and

theft. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most

valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spanning over a period of more than 6 years and has been in the

corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The sentence

awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple imprisonment for

each count. The petitioner has remained incarcerated for more

than 2 years and 1 month till date and presently he is in custody.

He is a poor person. In view of the facts noted above, the case of

the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner

also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this

court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements

made 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 facts and

circumstances of the case, age of petitioner, period of

[2023:RJ-JD:27912] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1112/2023]

incarceration, his status in the society and the fact that he faced

financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court

is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentences

imposed upon the petitioner for each count are reduced to the one

already undergone by him.

9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2018

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar

in Criminal Original Case No.687/2017 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal

Appeal No.88/2018 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence

awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 457

and 380 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence the

petitioner has undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in

custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other

case.

10. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, including the suspension of sentence application, are

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 99-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)