Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deva Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8990) on 13 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8990]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 510/2007
Deva Ram S/o Mangla Ram R/o Doli Khurd, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 484/2007
Deva Ram S/o Roopa Ram R/o Newari, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi
Mr. Vibhor Sharma for Mr. Sanjay
Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
13/02/2025
1. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 22.05.2007 passed in Cr. Appeals
No.11/2004 & 12/2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court while dismissing the petitioners' appeal, upheld the
judgment dated 29.09.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.527/1995
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as
[2025:RJ-JD:8990] (2 of 4) [CRLR-510/2007]
'the trial 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 R.I. Rs.1,000/- each 2 months' S.I.
Section 380 IPC 6 months' R.I. Rs.500/- each 1 month S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.1995, complainant
Mahant Chetanvan submitted a written report at Police Station
Balotra to the extent that upon returning to the Math after being
away for a night, he found the locks of two rooms of the Math
were broken and some items were stolen. On this report, Police
registered a case against the accused petitioners for offences
under Section 457 & 380 IPC 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 6 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 29.09.2004 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
[2025:RJ-JD:8990] (3 of 4) [CRLR-510/2007]
7. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred appeals before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2007.
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 they do not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1995 and out of total
sentence of one year R.I., the accused petitioner - Deva Ram
S/o Mangla Ram has already served about 17 days and accused
petitioner - Deva Ram S/o Roopa Ram has already served about
27 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 1995 and
the accused petitioner - Deva Ram S/o Mangla Ram has so far
undergone a period of about 17 days and accused petitioner -
Deva Ram S/o Roopa Ram has so far undergone a period of about
27 days in custody out of one year of total sentence, so also
suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to
[2025:RJ-JD:8990] (4 of 4) [CRLR-510/2007]
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 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 is hereby waived. 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
285-286-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
