Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanti And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14769) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14769]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 165/2007
1. Kanti S/o Meerka Meena R/o Fatehpura, Dungarpur.
2. Ramesh S/o Kava Meena R/o Saklal, P.S. Pahara, District
Udaipur.
3. Rama @ Ram Lal S/o Dhula Meena R/o Indora-Kalasuon-
Ka Guda, P.S. Ganeshpur, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
Mr. Hitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 03.02.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.28/2001 by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court
while partly allowing the petitioners' appeal, upheld the judgment
dated 20.06.2001 passed in Regular Crl. Case No.361/1999 by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred
to as 'the trial court'). The learned appellate Judge convicted and
sentenced the present petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 457 IPC 3 years' R.I. Rs.500/- each 3 months' S.I.
Section 380 IPC 3 years' R.I. Rs.500/- each 3 months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:14769] (2 of 4) [CRLR-165/2007]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.1999, the
complainant Adhok Kumar has submitted an oral report at Police
Staion Kotwali, Dungarpur inter-alia alleging that on the preceding
night his brother and his family were at his house. In their
absence, the accused-petitioners trespassed the complainant's
brother's house and stolen some gold ornaments and fled away.
On this report, Police registered a case against the accused
petitioners for offences under Section 457 & 380 IPC and started
investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the
petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 8 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined
on the defence side.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.06.2001 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
7. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 03.02.2007.
[2025:RJ-JD:14769] (3 of 4) [CRLR-165/2007]
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioners.
8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1999 and out of total
sentence of three years' R.I., the accused petitioners have already
served about 9 months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed
that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid
offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
10. 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-petitioners.
11. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1999 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about 9 months
in custody out of three years' 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 petitioners have
remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper,
if the sentence modified by the appellate court for offence under
Sections 457 and 380 of IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by the petitioners.
[2025:RJ-JD:14769] (4 of 4) [CRLR-165/2007]
12. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offences under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived.
The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail
bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
13. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
15-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
