Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sahib Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:34089) on 1 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34089]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1056/2008
Sahib Singh S/o Shyam Singh, R/o Ward No.3, Gajsinghpur,
District Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
Mr. Shiva Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
01/08/2025
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment dated 24.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, in
Criminal Appeal No.31/2007, whereby the learned Appellate Court
upheld and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 11.07.2007 rendered by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original
Case No.380/2004.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court had
convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to three years' simple
imprisonment coupled with a fine of ₹2,000/-; in default of
payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo an
additional three months' simple imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:34089] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2008]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits
that he does not press the present revision petition insofar as it
pertains to the finding of conviction. The challenge is confined only
to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the
occurrence in question dates back to the year 2004 and the
petitioner has already undergone incarceration for few days. It is
contended that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner back to serve the remainder of the sentence, especially
considering the passage of time, the nature of the offence, and
the petitioner's antecedents. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient
view be taken and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court
be suitably reduced to the period already undergone.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. I have also
perused the impugned orders and the materials available on
record.
5. So far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, in view
of the fair concession made by the learned counsel, and upon a
perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. There
appears to be no patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation
of evidence warranting interference in the conclusion as to guilt.
Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420
IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court, is hereby upheld and maintained.
[2025:RJ-JD:34089] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2008]
6. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, it is not disputed
that the incident in question occurred in the year 2001 and the
petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a considerable
duration during the course of trial and post-conviction-- for few
days. Additionally, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the
petitioner is now aged and is a person of limited financial means.
He has suffered the ordeal of a prolonged litigation extending over
two decades, thereby undergoing immense mental agony and
social distress.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the
mitigating circumstances, including the age and socio-economic
status of the petitioner, the length of the pendency of proceedings,
the fact that he has already undergone part of the custodial
sentence, and more particularly the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West
Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678, and Alister Anthony Pareira v.
State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the ends of justice
would be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 420 IPC, as recorded by the learned Addl. Judicial
Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original
Case No.380/2004 vide judgment dated 11.07.2007, and affirmed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Sri
Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 vide judgment dated
24.09.2008, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby
[2025:RJ-JD:34089] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1056/2008]
modified. It is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall
stand reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
However, the fine imposed shall remain intact. In the event of
non-payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable to undergo the
default sentence as originally awarded.
9. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent
indicated above.
10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial
Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
2-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
