Rajasthan High Court
Satish @ Karua S/O Raghuveer vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:1867) on 10 January, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:1867]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1775/2023
Satish @ Karua S/o Raghuveer, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nagla
Dhansota, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
(Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
10/01/2024
1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated
20.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2020
(CIS No.68/2020), dismissing the appeal preferred against the
judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.205/2017
(CIS No.2266/2017), whereby, he was convicted for the offences
under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/-
and in default of payment of which, he was further ordered to
undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JP:1867] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1775/2023]
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Asharam, S.I.,
Police Station Chiksana submitted a report at the Police Station
Chiksana. On the aforesaid report, an FIR No.233/2017 was
registered and after usual investigation, challan under Section
3/25 of the Arms Act was filed against 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 9 witnesses
and exhibited 12 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.
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 the
offences under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated
03.02.2020. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 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
[2024:RJ-JP:1867] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1775/2023]
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 2017. The offence involved is carrying arms.
The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial for 7
years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is 3
years' simple imprisonment. He has already remained in custody
for a period of more than 7 months and 7 days. 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 the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for significant time.
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 learned 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 is concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to
the year 2017 and involves the offences of carrying arms. 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 7 years and has been in the
corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The sentence
[2024:RJ-JP:1867] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1775/2023]
awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple imprisonment. The
petitioner has remained incarcerated for more than 7 months and
7 days till date and presently he is in custody. 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 are reduced to the one already
undergone by him.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2020
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.205/2017 (CIS No.2266/2017) as
well as the judgment in appeal 20.10.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur in
Criminal Appeal No.15/2020 (CIS No.8/2020) are affirmed but the
quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the
offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 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.
[2024:RJ-JP:1867] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1775/2023]
The petitioner is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,
if any, including the suspension of sentence application, are
disposed of.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
50-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
