Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rancha Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:20390) on 23 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:20390]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 355/2007
Rancha Ram S/o Shri Arjun Ram, R/o Sajta (Kukado ki Dhani),
Tehsil Gudamalani, Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Dudy
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/04/2025
By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner-
accused has challenged the order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Appeal No.33/2005,
whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
28.09.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Balotra in Criminal Original Case No.313/2000 was confirmed.
The conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner by
the learned trial Court vide order and judgment dated 28.09.2005
reads as under:-
Offences under Section Sentence
420 IPC One year's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1000/-, and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo two months' S.I.
471 IPC One year's S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1000/-, and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo two months' S.I.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently
[2025:RJ-JD:20390] (2 of 4) [CRLR-355/2007]
Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on
11.04.2000, the complainants namely Bhagwan and Ramaran sent
a letter to the District Collector, Barmer alleging inter alia that the
petitioner was appointed as Instructor at the Non - Formal
Education Centre in Village Kukdon ki Dhani of Gram Panchayat
Sajata, who has not cleared 8th Standard, and has only completed
his education till 2nd or 3rd Standard. He has obtained the
appointment on the aforesaid post only on the basis of false and
fabricated 8th Standard marksheet. Hence, inquiry with regard to
genuiness of such document be made. On the basis of this letter, a
written report was presented before the SHO of Police Station
Sindhari, District Balotra and a case was registered against the
present petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 471 of
IPC and investigation was commenced.
The investigating agency filed a chargesheet against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC.
Upon completion of the trial, the learned trial court vide order
dated 28.09.2005 found the petitioner guilty of the
aforementioned offences and sentenced him as above. The
learned appellate Court vide order and judgment dated
18.04.2007 upheld and confirmed the same.
Learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the
sentences awarded to the petitioner has already been suspended
by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application for Suspension of Sentence No.58/2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
incident in the present case relates to the year 2000. The
[2025:RJ-JD:20390] (3 of 4) [CRLR-355/2007]
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there
is no positive evidence available on record indicating his guilt in
commission of the alleged crime. The witnesses in the present
case are interested witnesses and no independent eye witness has
been examined before the trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative
submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 2000 and the
petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded
to him, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the
petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka:
2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of
Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582.
Per Contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against
the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgments/orders and therefore the same do not call for any
interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of
the case.
This Court finds that the allegation against the present
petitioner is that he had obtained appointment on the basis of
false and fabricated 8th Standard marksheet. However, in the
opinion of this Court since the incident relates to the year 2000
[2025:RJ-JD:20390] (4 of 4) [CRLR-355/2007]
and the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of
protracted trial for about 25 years coupled with the fact that the
petitioner has spent some period in custody, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offences
punishable under Sections 471 and 420 of the IPC is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner's sentences
for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of the IPC
are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged accordingly.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
The record of the trial court as well as appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
25-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
