Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh @ Bittu vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:418) on 3 January, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:418]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2000
Surendra Singh @ Bittu S/o Sh. Surayan Singh B/c Kamboj sikh,
R/o Ward No.7, Raisinghnagar, District (Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D.S.S.Kharlia
Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/01/2024
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 08.06.2000
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal appeal No.75/1997 whereby
the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 20.09.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Regular Case No.455/1995; whereby the learned Judge
convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC
and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one
year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, he has been directed
to further undergo two months' of additional rigorous
imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (2 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000]
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.10.1995,
an FIR No.424/1995 came to be lodged at the Police Station
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under
Sections 403, 406 & 120-B of the IPC at the instance of the
complainant - Satish Kumar alleging therein that on 15.08.1995,
he instructed the petitioner, who was working as a driver to ply
the Truck No.RJ13-C-1715 loaded with mustard from
Raisinghnagar to Bharatpur. The petitioner did not return after
unloading the truck at Bharatpur and instead thereof he went to
Calcutta and further plied the truck for two months with someone
else's goods. He returned back on 09.10.1995 and told him
(complainant) that after deducting the expenditure, he received
Rs.38,000/- for plying the truck. The complainant further stated
that he asked the petitioner as to why he took the truck to
Calcutta and plied the same without his permission. Upon this, the
accused got agitated and on 12.10.1995, he alongwith his wife
and child came to the office of the truck union and started abusing
the complainant and denied to pay to Rs.38,000/- to him.
Furthermore, he was threatened by the wife of the petitioner that
he would falsely be implicated in the case of rape and for
committing murder of child. After usual investigation, charge-
sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner under Section
406 and 420 of the IPC before the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar and no case was found
against his wife.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (3 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000]
During the course of trial, as many as 6 witnesses were examined
and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation
was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused
petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned
Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Section
406 of the IPC vide judgment dated 20.09.1997. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by the trial
court. Both these judgments are under assail before this court in
the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel Mr. R.D.S.S.Kharliya, representing the
petitioner, at the outset 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 1995. He had remained in jail for more than 16 days after
passing of the judgment by the appellate Court and about 4 days
in police custody. No other criminal case has been reported
against him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a weaker
person of the society. He was 42 years of age on the date of
incident and presently he is 70 years old. He is facing trial since
the year 1995 and he has languished in jail for more than 20
days, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his
sentence.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (4 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000]
the petitioner has remained behind the bars for more than 20
days and no other except the present one has been registered
against the petitioner.
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,
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 sentence is concerned, it is true
that the petitioner remained behind the bars for more than 20
days. 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 status in the society and the fact that the case is
pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has
suffered more than 20 days out of sentence of 1 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.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.1997
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.455/1995 as
well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal
[2024:RJ-JD:418] (5 of 5) [CRLR-265/2000]
appeal No.75/1997 dated 08.06.2000 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.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
11. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
