Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwat Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4213) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4213]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1035/2006
Bhagwat Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh, B/c Rajput, Aged about
26 years, R/o Dhaman Ghatti, Police Station Bigod, District
Bhilwara (At present lodged in Bhilwara Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/01/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
06.11.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
No.1, Bhilwara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.87/2006 by which the appellate court
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment
dated 05.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First
Class) Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.688/2001
(327/1999), whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the present petitioner as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
419 IPC Two years' SI Rs.500/- in default of payment,
further undergo 15 days' S.I.
205 IPC One month's Fine of Rs.100/-, in default of
SI payment, further undergone
three days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:4213] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1035/2006]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.1999 a complaint was
lodged against Bhagwat Singh on the order of Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mandalgarh to the effect that the present petitioner was
impersonated him as accused Hameer Singh and gave the statement
on behalf of Hameer Singh. On this report, the police registered the
case against accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 419 and
205 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.08.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.11.2006. Hence,
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 1999 and the petitioner has so far
[2025:RJ-JD:4213] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1035/2006]
suffered a sentence of about thirty days, out of total sentence of
two years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections Sections 419 & 205 IPC may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither
any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the
accused petitioner 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-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1999 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of thirty days' incarceration, out of total sentence of two
years' 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-petitioner has remained behind the bars
for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 419 and 205
IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 419 & 205 IPC the sentence awarded to
[2025:RJ-JD:4213] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1035/2006]
him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court
is maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one months' simple imprisonment. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
25-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
