Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshanlal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17131) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17131]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 531/2006
Roshanlal S/o Nana Lal, Aged about 30 years, By caste Jat, R/o
Village Kabra, P.S. Railmagra, District Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/04/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
24.06.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.39/2006 by which the appellate court partly
allowed the appeal of the petitioner and modified the judgment of
sentence dated 31.10.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
court') in Criminal Regular Case No.264/1999. The learned
appellate court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as
under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 467/120 IPC Three years' Fine of Rs.200/- in default of
SI payment, further undergo three
months' S.I.
Sec. 468 IPC Five years' SI Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment, further undergo three
months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:17131] (2 of 4) [CRLR-531/2006]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that a letter was sent to the Office of
Collector, Rajsamand from Gram Panchayat Kabra, Panchayat Samiti
Railmagra on 13.08.1995 with the allegation that in a meeting of
Panchayat, held on 23.07.1995, in which Jeti D/o Ganga Ram Jat was
shown to be dead on 10.08.1993, whereas as per the death
certificate, Jeti was alleged to have expired on 22.03.1994. However,
it has been claimed Mrs. Jeti is in fact alive. Due to this some
tampering were made in the documents. On this report, the police
registered the case against accused-petitioner 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 for offence under
Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468 and 471 IPC, who denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirty
one witnesses and also exhibited certain 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 31.10.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences 420-120-B, 467/120-B and
468 of IPC.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
[2025:RJ-JD:17131] (3 of 4) [CRLR-531/2006]
came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 24.06.2006.
Hence, this revision petition.
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 1995 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about five days, out of total sentence of
five years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections 467/120-B and 468 IPC may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government
Advocate vehemently 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 1995 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of about five days' incarceration, out of total sentence of
five 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
reduced by the appellate court for offence under Sections
[2025:RJ-JD:17131] (4 of 4) [CRLR-531/2006]
467/120-B and 468 IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Sections 467/120-B and 468 IPC the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court
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 shall undergone one month's simple imprisonment.
The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall
be adjusted. The petitioner 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
11-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
