Rajesh @ Raju vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6732 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27835]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1110/2023

Rajesh @ Raju S/o Sh. Dashrath, Aged About 25 Years, Dhansariya, Teh. Madihan, Dist. Mirzapur (U.p.), Presently R/o Near Pbm Hospital, Footpath, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.). (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 7

days. 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 10.05.2023 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal

No.20/2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming

the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections

[2023:RJ-JD:27835] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1110/2023]

457 and 380 of the IPC as recorded by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Original Case No.8405/2022,

reduced the sentence for each offence from 3 years' rigorous

imprisonment to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment, while

maintaining the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of

1 month's simple imprisonment and it was further ordered that

the sentences shall run concurrently.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant

Manoj Suthar submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station

Kotgate to the effect that he has an authorized service center of

Maruti in the name of General Automobile. In the intervening

night of 01.06.2022-02.06.2022, some unknown person burgled

into the shop and stole an amount of Rs.50,000/- lying in the cash

drawer and the said activity is recorded in the CCTV. On the

aforesaid report, FIR No.168/2022 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 11 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. No

[2023:RJ-JD:27835] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1110/2023]

evidence was adduced from defence side. Then, after hearing the

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel 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 12.04.2023. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly

allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

10.05.2023 while affirming the judgment of conviction and

modifying the order of sentence. 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 granting the benefit of probation to the

petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a young man aged 25

years. He has no criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal

case registered against him. He is a poor person. This was one

off incident and there is every possibility that the petitioner shall

be reformed if he is given a chance. He has remained in custody

for some days during trial and at present he is serving the

sentence. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by

taking a lenient view, the petitioner may be given the benefit of

probation.

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

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

[2023:RJ-JD:27835] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1110/2023]

petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time and that it

was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner.

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 :

(1) The petitioner is a young boy aged 25 years;

(2) The case involves the offences under Sections 457 and 380

of the IPC, i.e. trespassing and theft from a shop.

(3) It was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner

and he has no criminal antecedents.

(4) The learned appellate court has taken a lenient view and

reduced the sentence for each count to two years' rigorous

imprisonment.

(5) There is no report regarding any untoward behaviour of the

petitioner during the period of custody and during the period of

bail.

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, this

court is of the considered opinion that a reformative approach

should be adopted in the present case. Thus, this court while

[2023:RJ-JD:27835] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1110/2023]

taking lenient view towards petitioner, thinks it fit that instead of

sentencing him at once to any punishment, he should be be

released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The

judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case

No.8405/2022 as well as the judgment in appeal dated

10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6,

Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.20/2023 are affirmed. However, the

order of sentence stands modified in the manner that the

petitioner is ordered to be released from prison forthwith on

probation under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act

upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- with

one surety in the like amount, for a period of two years with an

undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called

upon by the court, in case of default of any term and condition of

the probation bond and to keep peace and be of good behaviour

during such period of two years from the date of his entering into

such bond. The bonds be furnished before the learned trial Court,

i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The amount of fine as

imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the petitioner

within a period of 90 days from the date of this order. The

petitioner is on custody. He shall be released on probation

forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, upon satisfying the

aforementioned requirements.

[2023:RJ-JD:27835] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1110/2023]

11. The application seeking suspension of sentence and all other

pending applications are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 98-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)