Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhakar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24981) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24981]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 210/2025
Bhakar Ram S/o Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Riya
Badi, P.s. Padukalla, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.
(Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Ramesh Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/05/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2024 in criminal appeal
No.199/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4,
Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and
upheld the judgment dated 20.03.2024 in regular criminal case
No.172/2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the
present petitioner for offence under Section 379 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo 2 years' S.I. and imposed a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 7 days' S.I.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.08.2023 the
complainant Tulcharam Choudhary submitted a written report
before SHO, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur to the extent that
on 21.08.2023 at about 10.30 AM he parked his motorcycle
bearing registration number RJ-19-ES-8163 in the parking area of
Kar Bhavan. When he returned at about 5 PM, he found his
[2025:RJ-JD:24981] (2 of 3) [CRLR-210/2025]
motorcycle missing from the parking. Upon the aforesaid
information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation,
charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the
Court concerned.
5. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Section 379 of IPC against the petitioner who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 8 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.03.2024 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
8. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.08.2024.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
9. 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 2023 and the petitioner
is in judicial custody for last 1 year 8 months & 21 days and out of
total sentence of two years' S.I., 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24981] (3 of 3) [CRLR-210/2025]
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2023 and
the petitioner is in judicial custody for last 1 year 8 months & 21
days, out of two 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 petitioner is in judicial
custody, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the
trial court for offence under Section 379 of IPC and affirmed by
the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by
the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
379 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by
the trial Court is hereby waived.
10. The petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
97-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
