Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh @ Koki vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5876) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5876]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499/2006
Mahendra Singh @ Koki S/o Shri Surendra Singh Panwar, By
caste Rajput, R/o 10, Ramballi Nagar, Police Station Aerodrum,
Indore (Madhya Pradesh) (lodged at District Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/01/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
24.05.2006 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge
Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.36/2005 by which the appellate court
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment
dated 16.11.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal
Regular Case No.32/2001, whereby, the learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 451 IPC One month's Fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
SI payment, further undergo 15
days' S.I.
Sec. 380 IPC One year's SI Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment, further undergone 15
days' S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:5876] (2 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006]
Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2000 complainant
Narain Lal lodged an FIR at Police Station Rajnagar to the effect that
one month ago, a boy and a girl viz. Mahendra and Neetu has came
there and rented a room from the complainant. On 28.06.2000 at
about 5.00 P.M. when he came to his house then he came to know
that they had stolen Rs.20,250/- alongwith some jewellery. Upon
which, he tried to search them then he came to know that both the
persons went into a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-30-C-0784. On
this report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioner
for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 451 &
380 IPC. 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 thirteen
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 16.11.2005 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 24.05.2006. Hence,
this revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:5876] (3 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006]
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 2000 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about fifty four days, out of total sentence
of one year's S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Sections Sections 451 & 380 IPC may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate
General 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 2000 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of fifty four days' incarceration, out of total sentence of one
year's 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 451 and 380
IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
[2025:RJ-JD:5876] (4 of 4) [CRLR-499/2006]
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 451 & 380 IPC the sentence awarded to
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
23-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
