Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pawandeep @ Daniya vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23784) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:23784]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 696/2024
Pawandeep @ Daniya S/o Harjinder Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No. 8, Purani Aabadi, Sriganganagar. (Lodged In
Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pankaj S/o Girdhari Lal, R/o Kishanpura Utaradh, Ps
Sangariya, Hanumangad Presently Manager At Choudhary
Eet Udhyog, Neeta Wale, Ps Chuunawad.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Karwasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
24/05/2024
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
15.03.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1,
Sriganganagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.12/2020 (CIS No.90/2020) by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld
the judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Sriganganagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.1192/2016, whereby, the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner
as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 454 IPC Two years' SI Rs.500/- in default of payment,
further undergo 15 days' S.I.
Sec. 380 IPC Two years' Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
S.I. payment, further undergone 15
days' S.I
[2024:RJ-JD:23784] (2 of 4) [CRLR-696/2024]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Pankaj submitted a
written report before Police Station Chunawad to the effect that on
09.07.2016 at about 10.00 P.M. he alongwith Bhuraram and Manoj
was sleeping after completing their work. At about 5.00 a.m. when
the complainant woke up, he found that his wallet and phones of
Bhuraram and Manoj was missing. On this report, the police
registered the case against accused-petitioner for offence under
Sections 454, 380 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.08.2019 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.03.2022. Hence
this revision petition.
[2024:RJ-JD:23784] (3 of 4) [CRLR-696/2024]
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2016 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about eleven months, out of total sentence
of two years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said
case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2016 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of eleven months incarceration, out of total sentence of two
years' S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of
protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars
for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 457 & 380
IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
[2024:RJ-JD:23784] (4 of 4) [CRLR-696/2024]
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Sections 457 & 380 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount is hereby waived. The petitioner is
behind the bars, he may be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
Suspension of Sentence application is also disposed of
accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
129-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
