Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28536) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28536]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 809/2008
Arjun Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal, B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Bhana,
PS Rajnagar, District Rajsamand. (Prevently lodged in District
Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/07/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
11.07.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal
No.124/2007 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of
the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 18.07.2007 passed
by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Rajsamand, in Regular Cr. Case No.453/2006, whereby, the
learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under
Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo 20 days simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2003, complainant
Jahoor Shah submitted a written report before the concerned
Police Station to the effect that someone stole his two machines
[2025:RJ-JD:28536] (2 of 3) [CRLR-809/2008]
from his godown. On the said report, Police registered a case and
started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed
the charge against the accused-petitioner for offence under
Section 379 IPC, who denied the charge and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses and also exhibited certain documents.
Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 18.07.2007 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 379 of IPC.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2008. 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 2003 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of more than one year, out of total sentence
of two years SI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the
offence under Section 379 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
[2025:RJ-JD:28536] (3 of 3) [CRLR-809/2008]
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said
case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments passed by the courts below.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2003 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of more than one year 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
Section 379 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 for offence under
Section 379 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount, if not deposited by the petitioner, is waived. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
