Shahrukh Khan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7067 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30061]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905/2023

Shahrukh Khan S/o Hussain Khan, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Shreeram Colony Police Station Kotwali, Dist. Banswara. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

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


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Devendra Sanwlot
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

12/09/2023

1. The instant criminal revision petition is barred by limitation

from 409 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act has been preferred seeking condonation of delay. For the

grounds and reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed. The

delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The same be

treated to be filed within limitation.

2. An application has been filed seeking correction in the order

dated 28.07.2023, wherein indavertently name of the trial court

has been mentioned as "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara"

instead of "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara". The

correction sought for is essential, therefore, it is ordered that the

name of the trial court mentioned in para 4 of the order dated

28.07.2023 shall be read as "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District

Banswara" instead of "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara".

[2023:RJ-JD:30061] (2 of 6) [CRLR-905/2023]

3. Looking to the nature of offence and other facts and

circumstances of the case, with the consent of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision

petition itself is being heard and decided today itself.

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

of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved

of the judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.64/2016, dismissing the

appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal

Original Case No.440/2014, whereby he was convicted for the

offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and for each

count, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years

alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 days.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.08.2014,

complainant Anil S/o Ramesh Chandra Joshi submitted a report at

the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara to the effect that on that day

at 09.00 a.m. he went alongwith Superintending Engineer to

inspect a site. When he returned back at 11.30 a.m., he opened

the lock of the main gate of the house and found that the same

was locked from inside. The main gate was got opened in the

presence of Mr. Shyam Lal Gurjar, SI and it was noticed that the

household articles had been threshed about and cash, ornaments

and other articles had been stolen. On the aforesaid report, FIR

[2023:RJ-JD:30061] (3 of 6) [CRLR-905/2023]

No.375/2014 was registered and after usual investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the

offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC.

6. 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 10 witnesses

and exhibited 13 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 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 454 and 380 of

the IPC vide judgment dated 27.08.2016. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

08.09.2021 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court.

Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

7. 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 2014. The offences involved are trespassing

[2023:RJ-JD:30061] (4 of 6) [CRLR-905/2023]

and theft. The petitioner was a young man aged 19-20 years at

that time. He is an illiterate and poor labourer belonging to rural

background. His family is dependent upon him. He has already

suffered agony of protracted trial for 9 years. He has remained in

custody for some time during trial and at present he is in judicial

custody. 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.

8. 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 some time.

9. 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.

10. 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 2014 and involves the offences of trespassing and theft.

The sentence awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple

imprisonment for each count. The petitioner, who is a poor

illiterate person, has remained incarcerated for some time during

trial and at present he is in judicial custody after decision of

appeal. He was a young boy aged 19-20 years at the time of the

[2023:RJ-JD:30061] (5 of 6) [CRLR-905/2023]

incident. 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 9 years and

has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. 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 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.

11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2016

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in

Criminal Original Case No.440/2014 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.64/2016 are affirmed but the

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each

count, i.e. Section 454 and 380 of the IPC, is modified to the

extent that the sentence the petitioner has undergone till date

[2023:RJ-JD:30061] (6 of 6) [CRLR-905/2023]

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.

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

seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if

any, are also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 82-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)