Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Kishore And Anr vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:23777) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:23777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2004
1. Nand Kishore S/o Ram Gopal, B/c Acharaj, Aged 52 years, R/o
Kadi Sehna, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
2. Ram Gopal S/o Shri Champalal JI, B/c Acharaj, Aged 52 years,
R/o Kadi Sehna, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AR Malkani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/05/2024
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
17.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gulabpura Camp Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred
to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.81/2000 by which
the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and
upheld the judgment dated 30.05.1998 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, in Cr. Case
No.422/1985, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioners as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. Sec.467 IPC 3 years & 6 Rs.500/- 3 months SI
months SI
2. Sec. 468 IPC 1 year SI Rs.400/- 1 month SI
[2024:RJ-JD:23777] (2 of 4) [CRLR-431/2004]
3. Sec.120B IPC 1 year SI Rs.250/- 1 month SI
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.1985, complainant
Smt. Kamla filed a complaint before learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahpura to the effect that she was having an
agricultural land at Village Kadi Sehna, which was transferred in
her favour by her mother Smt. Aijan by way of a gift-deed. The
complainant alleged that the accused persons with the intention to
transfer the agricultural land in their names, fraudulently took the
said gift-deed from the complainant and also took the thumb
impressions of her mother Smt. Aijan on blank papers. The
complainant prayed that necessary actions be taken against the
accused-persons. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint
to Police Station Pander for investigation. Upon which, Police
registered a case against the accused-persons for offence under
Sections 420, 467 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against
the accused persons including the petitioners for offence under
Sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 120B IPC. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charge. The accused persons denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as fourteen witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, two witnesses were examined and two documents were
exhibited.
[2024:RJ-JD:23777] (3 of 4) [CRLR-431/2004]
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 30.05.1998 convicted and sentenced the
accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 467, 468, 120B IPC.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came
to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.06.2004. Hence this revision
petition.
During the pendency of the revision, the accused-petitioner
No.1 Nand Kishore has expired and this Court vide order dated
23.05.2024 dismissed the revision qua him as abated.
So far as petitioner No.2 Ram Gopal is concerned, at the
threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it
is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1985 and the
petitioner No.2 has so far suffered a sentence of about one month,
out of total sentence of three years and six months S.I. In such
circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to
the accused-petitioner No.2 for the aforesaid offences 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-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioners 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-petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:23777] (4 of 4) [CRLR-431/2004]
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1985 and the accused-petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a
period of about one month incarceration, out of total sentence of
three years and six months 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 No.2 has
remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Sections 467, 467, 120B IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the conviction of petitioner No.2 for offence under
Sections 467, 467, 120B IPC, the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Two months'
time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner No.2 shall undergo
one month's S.I. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
152-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
