Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13307) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13307]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 249/2025
Prahlad Singh S/o Balam Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Dholerav,
P.s. Merta City, Distt. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged At Central
Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhola Ram Chahar
Mr. Vikas Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
10/03/2025
An application (01/2025) has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in
filing the present criminal revision petition.
For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is
hereby condoned.
The matter is being heard and decided today itself.
Instant revision petition under Section 438/442 BNSS (Section
397/401 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.79/2019 by
which the appellate court upheld the judgment dated 07.08.2019,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
[2025:RJ-JD:13307] (2 of 4) [CRLR-249/2025]
Deedwana, District Nagaur in Criminal Regular Case No.197/2014,
whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI
along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that on 24.06.2014, complainant
Asgar Khan submitted a written report at the concerned Police
Station to the effect that his Bolero car, bearing registration No.RJ 28
UA 1081, which was parked in front of his house, was stolen by some
unknown person. On the said report, Police registered a case and
started investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the
present petitioner.
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 eleven witnesses and also exhibited certain documents.
Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was produced in defence.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.08.2019 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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:13307] (3 of 4) [CRLR-249/2025]
relates back to year 2014 and the petitioner has so far suffered a
sentence of about five months, out of total sentence of one year RI.
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 AAG opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned
AAG 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.
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 2014 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period
of about five months, out of total sentence of one year R.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 default
sentence of one month RI is also reduced to 15 days RI. The fine
amount is hereby maintained. The petitioner is in jail. On
deposition of fine amount, he may be released forthwith if not
[2025:RJ-JD:13307] (4 of 4) [CRLR-249/2025]
required in any other case. In case, the petitioner does not deposit
the fine amount, he shall undergo the reduced default sentence of
15 days.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
159-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
