Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moti Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17127) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17127]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 842/2007
Moti Ram S/o Dalu Ram R/o Village Shobhasar, Tehsil Sujangarh,
District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, learned
counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma is appointed as amicus curiae in this
matter. The remuneration to the amicus curiae shall be paid by
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.
2. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.30/2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh,
Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which
the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld
the judgment dated 11.10.2001 passed in Crl. Original Case
No.381/2001 by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial
Magistrate, Sujangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'),
whereby learned trial Judge acquitted the petitioner from offence
punishable under Sections 457 & 380 IPC whereas convicted him
for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him
[2025:RJ-JD:17127] (2 of 4) [CRLR-842/2007]
to undergo one year's R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,500/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' S.I.
3. The period spent in police & judicial custody shall be
adjusted in the original imprisonment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.1997, the
complainant Mumtaz Khan submitted a written report at Police
Staion Salasar inter-alia alleging that on the preceding night the
accused-petitioner trespassed her house and stole some gold
ornaments & other articles. On this report, Police registered a case
against the accused petitioner and started investigation.
5. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC against the
petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under
section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined on
the defence side.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 11.10.2001 acquitted the accused-
petitioner from offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 IPC
whereas convicted him for offence punishable under Section 411
IPC.
8. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.08.2007.
[2025:RJ-JD:17127] (3 of 4) [CRLR-842/2007]
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
9. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1997 and out of total
sentence of one year's R.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 17 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and 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.
11. 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.
12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1997 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 17 days in
custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 411
of IPC and affirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to the period
already undergone by the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
[2025:RJ-JD:17127] (4 of 4) [CRLR-842/2007]
411 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone.
14. The fine amount is maintained. The amount of fine imposed
by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then
two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
shall undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
16. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
