Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash @ Keliya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14488) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14488]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1025/2021
Kailash @ Keliya S/o Sh. Kaniya, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Maida
Bhil, R/o Daulatpura, P.s. Danpur, Dist. Banswara (Raj.). (At
Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Banswara).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Hussain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.60/2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court
while partly allowing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment
dated 03.11.2015 passed in Criminal Original Case No.117/2103
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). The learned appellate
court convicted the present petitioner for offence as under:-
(i) Section 411 IPC - Three years' R.I. and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:14488] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1025/2021]
(ii) Section 420 IPC - Three years' R.I. and imposed a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2013, Om Prakash,
Head Constable submitted a written report at Police Station
Danpur alleging that during patrolling along with two other Police
personnel received an information about theft of a motorcycle by
the present petitioner. On the basis of said information, Police
personnel reached Garh Unkala and during blockade they stopped
the accused-petitioner for questioning his identity. Upon inquiring
about the motorcycle in question, the accused-petitioner admitted
to having stolen the motorcycle from Jaipur. Upon said report, the
Police registered a case against the accused-petitioner and
commenced investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the
charges for offence under Section 411, 420, 465, 468 & 471 of
IPC against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 21 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
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 03.11.2015 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
[2025:RJ-JD:14488] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1025/2021]
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 06.10.2021
whereby appellate Court acquitted the accused-petitioner from
offence under Sections 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. Hence, this revision
petition.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2013 and out of total
sentence of three years' R.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 2 years 9 months & 25 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 2013 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 2 years 9
months & 25 days in custody out of three 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 appellate court for
[2025:RJ-JD:14488] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1025/2021]
offence under Sections 420 & 411 IPC 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
411 & 420 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The petitioner is
on 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
244-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
