Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesh Lal And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16000) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 694/2007
1. Ganesh Lal S/o Walji Bhagora Meena, R/o Nayagaon
Barothi, Police Station Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur.
2. Nitil @ Arvind @ Pappu S/o Banshilal Gameti, Resident of
Dhamol Fala, Kala Bhata, Police Station Kherwara, District-
Udaipur.
(Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
26/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the judgment dated 11.07.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.44/2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, by which the
appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 11.08.2004 passed in Regular Cr. Case
No.364/2002 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur by which the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of
fine
Sec.454 IPC 3 years S.I. Rs.100/- 3 months' S.I.
Sec.380 IPC 3 years S.I. Rs.100/- 3 months' S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:16000] (2 of 4) [CRLR-694/2007]
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2002, the
complainant Kesar Singh, submitted a written report at Police
Station Bichhiwara to the effect that on 13.09.2002 he along with
his family went to Ambaji for religious visit. From there, he went
to Ahemdabad for work while his wife returned home from Ambaji.
On 18.09.2002, he received the information that some unknown
persons broke the lock of his house and had stole some of her
gold and silver jewellery as well as some cash. On the said report,
an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet
came to be submitted against the present-petitioners in the Court
concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
petitioners for offence under Section 454 & 380 of IPC, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioners
under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 11.08.2004 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.07.2007.
Hence, this revision petition.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that they do not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2002 and out of total
[2025:RJ-JD:16000] (3 of 4) [CRLR-694/2007]
sentence of three years' S.I., the accused petitioner have already
served more than two months of imprisonment, therefore, it is
prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by them.
8. 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.
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-petitioners.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2002 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a period of more than two
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 awarded by the trial court for offence under
Sections 454 & 380 of IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Sections
454 & 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 maintained. Two months'
time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court, if
[2025:RJ-JD:16000] (4 of 4) [CRLR-694/2007]
not already deposited by them. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioners shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioners are on
bail. They need not surrender. Their 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
31-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
