Sohan Lal Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37846)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7980 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sohan Lal Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37846) on 11 September, 2024

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2024:RJ-JD:37846]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1144/2024

Sohan Lal Bishnoi S/o Sh. Surja Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Ramdawas Kallan, Ps Pipar City Dist. Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hitesh Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

11/09/2024

1. The petitioner faced trial in Original Criminal Case

No.109/2013 for offence under Section 379 IPC. By judgment

dated 04.05.2019, learned trial judge convicted petitioner and

sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay

fine of Rs.500/-. The said conviction was challenged in Criminal

Appeal No.40/2019, which was dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner on 28.08.2024. Both the

orders are under challenge herein.

2. The FIR of theft of motorcycle against unknown person was

registered vide FIR No.171/2013 with Police Station Basani,

Jodhpur. However, the said motorcycle was recovered from

possession of the petitioner, when the petitioner was in the house

of his brother. On the basis of recovery and presumption under

Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act and on consideration of the

prosecution evidence, conviction was recorded.

[2024:RJ-JD:37846] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1144/2024]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some argument does

not want to press this criminal revision on merit, however, submits

that there is no previous conviction against the petitioner and both

the courts have failed to consider that benefit of probation of

offenders Act should be allowed to the petitioner. Hence, the

sentence be reduced to period already undergone. Petitioner has

remained in jail for two months.

4. For substantial justice, the sentence awarded against the

petitioner is reduced to period already undergone.

5. With aforesaid modification in sentence, this criminal revision

stands disposed of. Let the petitioner be released at once on

execution of bond, that in the event of challenge of this order, the

petitioner shall appear before the appellate Court and cooperate in

the proceedings.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 35-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)