Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5771) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5771]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 902/2005
Laxman Singh S/o Bal Singh B/c Rajput R/o Bhaleri, Tehsil
Taranagar, District Churu.
(At present lodged in District Jail, Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.36/2001 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Rajgarh, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal,
upheld the judgment dated 02.08.2001 passed in Cr. Case
No.341/1998 by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Taranagar, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court')
whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner
for offence under Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced him
to undergo one year's S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.1996, A.S.I.
Dharmpal of Police Station Bhaleri submitted an FIR alleging that
[2025:RJ-JD:5771] (2 of 4) [CRLR-902/2005]
he received an information that some people of Rajput community
were going to sacrifice a goat which can cause riot. Upon receiving
such information, A.S.I. went to the place of incident where some
people were trying to sacrifice the goat and the present petitioner
was holding a revolver in his right hand. Thereafter, all of them
ran away and the present petitioner also ran away and threw the
revolver in a fencing. The A.S.I. recovered the revolver from
fencing and registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offence
under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and commenced
investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act against the
petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 8 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 02.08.2001 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2005.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
[2025:RJ-JD:5771] (3 of 4) [CRLR-902/2005]
since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total
sentence of one year S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 28 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and 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.
9. 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.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 28 days in
custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section
25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him for the
aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount is hereby waived. The petitioner is on
[2025:RJ-JD:5771] (4 of 4) [CRLR-902/2005]
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
10-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
