Rameshwar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7004 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28699]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1143/2023

Rameshwar S/o Nathu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Malwasa, Police Station Sadar, Banswara, District Banswara. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Banswara)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

11/09/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 10.08.2023

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal

Appeal No.23/2018, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

02.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.2383/2017; whereby

the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections

457 and 380 of the IPC and for each count he has been sentenced

to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years alongwith a fine of

Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 10 days' simple imprisonment.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant Joeb

[2023:RJ-JD:28699] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1143/2023]

S/o Fakharuddin Ratlami submitted a written report at the Police

Station Kotwali, District Banswara to the effect that on 15.09.2007

at 04.30 a.m., Govind Lal Ji informed his brother telephonically

that a theft has been committed in his mobile shop, upon which he

reached there and found that the lock of the shop had been

broken and shutter had been torn. The mobile and other articles

were lying in the shop in scattered condition and the lock of the

cash drawer had been broken. A separate list of stolen articles

was stated to be submitted. On the basis of the aforesaid

information, FIR No.391/2007 was registered and after usual

investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 457

and 380 of the IPC was filed against three persons including the

present petitioner.

3. 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 11 witnesses

and exhibited 19 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

evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned

Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon

meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court

convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and

380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 02.04.2018. Being aggrieved

of the aforesaid judgment, he preferred an appeal, which was

[2023:RJ-JD:28699] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1143/2023]

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

10.08.2023 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court.

Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. 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 2007. The petitioner was aged 21 years at

that time. He is a poor person. He was not having any criminal

antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against

him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except

the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 16 years. He remained in custody for

some time during trial, during appeal and presently he is in

judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. 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.

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

defend the case on merits 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

incarcerated for some time and at present he is in jail.

[2023:RJ-JD:28699] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1143/2023]

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

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.

7. 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 2007 and involves the offences of trespassing and theft.

It took 11 years to culminate the trial and thereafter decision in

appeal took further 5 years. 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 16

years and have been in the corridors of the court for this

prolonged period. He was a young man aged 21 years at the time

of the incident and now he has turned 37 years old. He is hailing

from weaker section of the society and is reportedly in poor

financial condition. It was the first criminal case registered

against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other

criminal case except this one. He was on bail during most of the

period of trial and during appeal and no report regarding any

misuse of liberty has been reported. He remained incarcerated for

some time during trial and presently, he is in judicial custody after

passing of the judgment in appeal. In view of the facts noted

above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with

[2023:RJ-JD:28699] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1143/2023]

leniency. The petitioner also deserve the benefit of the consistent

view taken by this court in this regard. The sentences of the co-

accused Arjun and Raju has already been reduced to the period

already undergone by them vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed

in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1069/2023. 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, his criminal antecedents, 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.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2018

passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.2383/2017 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.23/2018 are

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial

court for each count, i.e. Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, is

modified to the extent that the sentences the petitioner 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:28699] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1143/2023]

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application

seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if

any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 50-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)