Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17184) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17184]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1091/2007
Bhanwar Lal S/o Narayan Keer R/o Khatwada, Police Station
Bigod, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 712/2007
Garud @ Garudia S/o Kana Kanjar R/o Village Mandawari, Police
Station Begun, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
1. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 18.07.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.156/2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners' appeal,
upheld the judgment dated 21.11.2006 passed in Criminal Case
No.64/2006 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
[2025:RJ-JD:17184] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1091/2007]
court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced
the present petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 457 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.500/- each 5 days' S.I.
Section 380 IPC 1 years' S.I. Rs.500/- each 5 days' S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2005, the
complainant Suryaprakash has submitted a written report at Police
Station Bigod inter-alia alleging that due to ongoing construction
at his house he & his family were temporarily residing at his
uncle's house. In morning when he went to his house he found
that on the preceding night, some unknown individuals had
unauthorizedly entered his house and stole Rs.1,000/- & some
ornaments from his house. On this report, Police registered a case
against the accused petitioners and started investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the
petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 14 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of
the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In
defence, 2 witness were examined.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.11.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
[2025:RJ-JD:17184] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1091/2007]
7. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.07.2007.
Hence, these revision petitions against the conviction and
sentence of the accused-petitioners.
8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2005 and out of total
sentence of one year's S.I., the accused petitioner Bhanwar Lal
has already served about two months of imprisonment and Garud
@ Garudia has already served about 1 month & 20 days of
imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to
the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and 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.
10. 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.
11. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2005 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a considerable period 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 petitioners have remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
[2025:RJ-JD:17184] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1091/2007]
sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the revision petitions are partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offences under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not
already deposited by the petitioners, then two months' time is
hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one
month's S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender.
Their bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
13. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-27-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
