Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ruda Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28706) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28706]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 944/2008
Ruda Ram S/o Shri Kesara Ram, R/o Chak 2 DPS presently
residing at 2 D Badi, Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
02/07/2025
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2007,
whereby the order of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2007
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sri
Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No. 345/1996 for the offences under
Section 457 and 380 of IPC was confirmed.
2. The learned trial court vide order of conviction and judgement
dated 06.04.2007, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as
below:-
Offence Under Section Sentences
457 IPC Two years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.200/-, in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo 2 months' R.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:28706] (2 of 5) [CRLR-944/2008]
380 IPC Two years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.200/- in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo 2 months' R.I.
3. As per the prosecution's case, on 07.05.1992, the
complainant, Hotu Ram, submitted a written report to the
Station House Officer, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar, alleging
interalia that during the intervening night of 03.05.1992 and
04.05.1992, some unknown persons stolen 25-30 bags of
cumin seeds from his factory. In addition to stealing the
agricultural produce, a sum of ₹500-600 was also reportedly
stolen from the cash box kept at the premises.
4. On the basis of aforesaid report, the police lodged FIR
No. 94/1992 at Police Station Vijaynagar against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of IPC
and commenced investigation. After concluding the
investigation, the investigating agency filed the charge sheet
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 454
and 380 of IPC and trial was commenced against the
petitioner.
5. During the course of investigation, the prosecution
produced as many as 4 witnesses and also got exhibited 14
documents and statements of accused petitioner were also
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon completion of the trial, the petitioner was
convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under
[2025:RJ-JD:28706] (3 of 5) [CRLR-944/2008]
Sections 457 and 380 of IPC vide its judgment dated
06.04.2007. The learned Appellate Court, vide its judgment
dated 26.08.2008 affirmed the judgment passed by the
learned trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
incident in the present case relates to the year 1992. The
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further
submitted that there is no positive evidence available on
record indicating his guilt in commission of the alleged crime.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner
were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 08.09.2008
in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application
No. 328/2008.
9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that, in
view of the petitioner having already undergone a period of
detention, and considering the prolonged pendency of the
case since 2008 which has caused severe mental agony, the
sentences awarded to the present petitioner may be
substituted with the period of sentences already undergone
by him.
10. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the learned Courts below have rightly awarded the sentences
against petitioner and there is no illegality or infirmity in the
[2025:RJ-JD:28706] (4 of 5) [CRLR-944/2008]
impugned judgments whatsoever and therefore, the same do
not call for any interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction by this Court.
11. Heard.
12. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it
manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1992
and the present revision petition is pending adjudication
since 2008. The record of the case further indicates that
petitioner had already undergone detention for some period
and since the case is pending before this Court since 2008,
the petitioner had suffered both financial hardships and
mental agony.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.
(1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for
sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
courts have evolved certain principles: twin
objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence
would meet the ends of justice depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case and
the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra)
" ...considering the fact that the respondent
had case is pending for a pretty long time for
which he had already undergone detention for
some period and the suffered both financial
hardship and mental agony and also
[2025:RJ-JD:28706] (5 of 5) [CRLR-944/2008]
considering the fact that he had been
released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986,
we feel that the ends of justice will be met in
the facts of the case if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone..."
14. In light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
since the petitioner had already undergone detention for
some period, thus, without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present
petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him, deserves acceptance.
15. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of
IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly
16. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of
accordingly.
17. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court
below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
14-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
