Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sampat Singh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18349) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18349]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 565/2006
1. Sampat Singh S/o Shri Balu Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o
Dholikhera, Tehsil & District Bhilwara.
2. Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o
Haripura, Dholikhera, Police Station Karoi, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
09/04/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
26.06.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Nathdwara,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Case
No.6/2006 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of
the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 25.02.2006 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nathdwara,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular
Case No.315/1995, whereby, the learned trial court convicted the
present petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC and
sentenced him for a period of one year's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergone fifteen days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:18349] (2 of 4) [CRLR-565/2006]
Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.1994 complainant
Navneet lodged a written report at Police Station Nathdwara to the
effect that his Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-D-5330 was lying
outside his house, has been stolen by unknown individual. On this
report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioners for
offence under Section 379 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC.
Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the
accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC, who denied
the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined fourteen
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-person was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.02.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offence as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.06.2006. Hence,
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners do not challenge
the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence
relates back to year 1994 and the petitioners have so far suffered
a sentence of about forty days, out of total sentence of one year's
S.I. each. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence
awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections
[2025:RJ-JD:18349] (3 of 4) [CRLR-565/2006]
379 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor 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.
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.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1994 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a
period of about forty days' incarceration, out of total sentence of
one year's 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-petitioners have remained behind the
bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 379
IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under
Section 379 IPC the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid
offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court is already
[2025:RJ-JD:18349] (4 of 4) [CRLR-565/2006]
deposited by the petitioners. The petitioners are on bail. They
need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
15-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
