Govind Lal vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:5325)
2024 Latest Caselaw 699 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 699 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Govind Lal vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:5325) on 31 January, 2024

Author: Praveer Bhatnagar

Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar

[2024:RJ-JP:5325]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2005

Govind Lal S/o Late Heera Lal, aged about 24 years, R/o

Manpura, presently resident of Karir Ka Kheda, Tehsil Deegod,

Police Station Simalya, Kota (Rajasthan).

(Accused i Central Jail, Kota)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Naseem Uddin Qazi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Riyasat Ali - PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

                                     Order

31/01/2024

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 11.03.2005 passed by learned Special Court (Women

Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota in Criminal Appeal No.106/2003,

whereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

18.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.5, Kota in Criminal Case No.284/2001 was upheld.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section 465 I.P.C. :

One year's simple imprisonment.

Section 467 I.P.C. :

Two years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of which, he was further ordered to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

[2024:RJ-JP:5325] (2 of 5) [CRLR-283/2005]

Section 471 I.P.C. :

One year's simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Smt. Geeta Bai

filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota stating therein that her husband

Heera Lal purchased Tractor bearing registration No.RJ20-R-2495,

Trolley bearing registration No.RNO-7055 and Motorcycle bearing

registration No.RNR-7206 and he was the registered owner of the

said vehicles; complainant's husband was died on 06.03.1994; the

complainant never transferred the said vehicles to anyone;

complainant came to know that accused-petitioner fraudulently

took the thumb impression & signature of complainant and got the

said vehicles transferred in his name or some other person's

name; complainant tried to get the copies of documents of the

said vehicles from the office of R.T.O., Kota; all the three vehicles

were in possession of the accused-petitioner and after death of

complainant's husband the original documents of the said vehicles

were also in his possession; on 01.12.1998 when complainant

went to the office of R.T.O., Kota for getting the information about

the said vehicles, then she came to know that these vehicles have

been transferred in the name of accused-petitioner. On the basis

of the said complaint a case was registered and after thorough

investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467 & 471 I.P.C.

was filed against the present accused-petitioner before the Court

of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Kota.

3. The learned trial court 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

[2024:RJ-JP:5325] (3 of 5) [CRLR-283/2005]

order to prove the offences, examined as many as 13 witnesses.

The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution

allegation, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the

allegation and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing learned

counsel for the parties and upon meticulous appreciation of the

evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for the

offences under Sections 465, 467 & 471 I.P.C. vide judgment

dated 18.07.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, an

appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, which

came to be transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge

(Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota. Learned appellate court

after hearing the arguments vide judgment dated 18.07.2003

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the

trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise

has been entered in between the parties and complainant has

received the amount mentioned in the compromise. He also

submits that the learned trial court in its judgment has also

recorded the said fact regarding compromise entered in between

the parties. He submits that the sentence so awarded to the

petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated

11.07.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application For

Suspension of Sentence No.71/2005.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, makes a limited

submission that looking to the fact that parties have entered into

compromise and complainant has received the substantial

amount, so also, the maximum sentence awarded by the trial

court is two years' simple imprisonment and petitioner has already

[2024:RJ-JP:5325] (4 of 5) [CRLR-283/2005]

remained in custody for a period of 4 months & 1 day, therefore,

without making any interference on merits/conviction, the

sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted

with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgments passed by

learned courts below and opposes the revision petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. Learned trial court in its judgment has specifically recorded

that the parties have entered into compromise and complainant

has received the amount as mentioned in the compromise Exhibit-

D/3 dated 03.07.1998.

9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and

Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (Supra)

"...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."