Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sampatiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24942) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24942]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1105/2024
1. Sampatiya S/o Shankariya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Jawasiya Kheda, P.s. Hamirgarh, Dist. Bhilwara
2. Bhanwariya S/o Kaliya, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Jawasiya Kheda, P.s. Hamirgarh, Dist. Bhilwara
(Both the petitioners at Present Lodged In Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 27.01.2020 passed
by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.45/2019 whereby the
learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-I (East), Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case
No.129/2013 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 458 IPC 3 years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 days' SI
Section 324 IPC 1½ year's R.I. Rs.500/- 05 days' SI
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police custody & judicial custody shall be adjusted
in the original imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 27.06.1998,
complainant Smt. Noji submitted an oral complaint at Police
[2025:RJ-JD:24942] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1105/2024]
Station Hamirgarh inter alia alleging that in the preceding night at
about 2 AM she was sleeping along with his family members in
their house. At that time, someone snatched her nose pin due to
which she woke up and saw present petitioners standing near her
bed and snatched her neck chain. One of them made a knife blow
on her hand and ran away. 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.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the
petitioners for offences under Sections 457, 380 & 324 of IPC and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and
some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was
sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for
which they denied the same. Then, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused
petitioners for offences under Section 458 & 324 of IPC vide
judgment dated 07.02.2014 and sentenced them as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an
appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 27.01.2020. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Javed Khan, representing the
petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
[2025:RJ-JD:24942] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1105/2024]
year 1998. The accused-petitioner No.1 Sampaiya had remained
in jail for about 11 months & 13 days and accused-petitioner No.2
Bhanwariy had remained in jail for about 11 months & 7 days after
passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has
been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and
belong to the weaker section of the society. They are facing trial
since the year 1998 and they have languished in jail for some
time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their
sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that
the petitioners have remained behind the bars for
abovementioned time period and except the present one no other
case has been registered against them.
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court,
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the
rigor for last 27 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.
State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case,
age of the petitioner, their status in the society and the fact that
the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
[2025:RJ-JD:24942] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1105/2024]
petitioners are in judicial custody and the maximum sentence
imposed upon them is of three years as well as the fact that they
faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this
court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of
imprisonment that the petitioners have already undergone till
date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
27.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.45/2019
and the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-I (East), Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case
No.129/2013 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by
the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence
he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to
serve the interest of justice. The fine amount imposed by the trial
Court is hereby maintained.
10. The accused-petitioners are in custody and shall be released
forthwith after depositing the fine amount, if not required in any
other case. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall
undergo fifteen days' S.I.
11. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,
if any, are disposed of. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
96-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
