Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanwala Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18342) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18342]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 855/2006
Sanwala Ram S/o Dalla Ji, R/o Nimbawas, Tehsil Bhinmal,
District Jalore
[Lodged at District Jail Jalore]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore, in Criminal Appeal
No.08/2006 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 04.04.2006
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal,
District Jalore, in Original Criminal Case No.45/2001 by which the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 380 IPC 2 years' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, 15 days' SI
Sec. 457 IPC 2 years' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, 15 days' SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 05.11.2000,
complainant Ghewar Ram lodged a written report at concerned Police
[2025:RJ-JD:18342] (2 of 4) [CRLR-855/2006]
Station alleging that he and Abdul are caretakers of a house of Ashok.
Ghewar Ram received information from Babu Lal (neighbour of Ashok)
that the lock of the house was broken. Upon arriving at the location, the
broken lock was confirmed. On the basis of this report, the police
registered a case and commenced the investigation and after
completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet. The
learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial, the
prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and submitted certain
documents in support of his case. The accused-petitioner was examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against
him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections
380 and 457 of IPC vide order dated 04.04.2006. Being aggrieved by
the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Session
Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore, whereby the appellate court dismissed
the appeal vide judgment dated 08.09.2006.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Singh, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by
the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the
incident took place in the year 2000. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about fifteen days out of total sentence
of two year simple imprisonment. No other case has been reported
against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker
section of the society. The accused-petitioner was aged about 21 years
[2025:RJ-JD:18342] (3 of 4) [CRLR-855/2006]
in 2000 at the time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about
46 years at present and has been facing trial since the year 2000 and
he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may
be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned AGA though opposed the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has
remained behind the bars for about fifteen days and except the present
one, no other case has been registered against him.
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and
after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this
court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner
remained in jail for some time. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das
Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC
648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is two year
as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go
through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2006 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore,
[2025:RJ-JD:18342] (4 of 4) [CRLR-855/2006]
in Original Criminal Case No.45/2001 and the judgment dated
08.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhinmal,
District Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No.08/2006 are affirmed but the
quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to
the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount
imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
20-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
