Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akbar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 September, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:28643]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1146/2022
Akbar S/o Hajar Khan Musalman, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Piproli Ps Rajgarh Dist. Alwar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaya Ram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF ORDER ::: 05/09/2023
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the impugned judgment dated
27.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Begu, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.20/2021
(253/2017) whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2017 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Begu, District Chittorgarh in Criminal
Case No.85/2007 by which the petitioner has been convicted for
the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to one year's
simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in
payment of fine, he has to further undergo ten days additional
simple imprisonment.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, briefly stated the facts of the case
are that the petitioner was tried for committing an offence of theft
[2023:RJ-JD:28643] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1146/2022]
of vehicle (truck) and vide judgment dated 13.11.2017, the
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
mentioned above.
3. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 Om Prakash (who is
complainant of the case) it is revealing that there was some
bonafide dispute between the petitioner and the truck owner. It is
emanating from the record that the truck in question had been
handed over to P.W. 5 Om Prakash, the truck owner but it was
alleged that the petitioner took away the vehicle against his
consent.
4. P.W. 5 Om Prakash, the truck owner admits that he had
written a note in favour of the accused-petitioner with regard to
his property right and the ownership over the truck but later, he
resiled. Admittedly, the vehicle had been taken away after 15
days of the incident by the police officials concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 2006 and the petitioner had remained in police
custody for some time during the proceedings of trial. He was on
bail during trial and no case other than the present one 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 i.e. 08.11.2006 and he has suffered the agony of trial and
judicial proceeding for long 17 years and he has languished in
police custody for a considerable period, therefore, a lenient view
may be taken in reducing his sentence.
[2023:RJ-JD:28643] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1146/2022]
6. 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 in police custody during trial
and no other case has been reported to be registered against him.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Public Prosecutor for the State and have minutely gone through
the judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well
as the Court of Appeal. 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, therefore, 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 sentence is concerned, it is true
that the petitioner remained in police custody during investigation
and trial. 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 economic background and status in the society
and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for
which the petitioner has remained in custody for some time out of
the sentence of one year 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:28643] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1146/2022]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2017
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Begu, District
Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No.85/2007 as well as the judgment
of appeal dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Begu, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal
No.20/2021 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 on bail. His bail
bonds are discharged.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
311-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
