Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25035) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:25035]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2025
Kamal Singh, S/o Dhan Singh R/o Amadpura Ikadani, Police
Station Pachpadra, District Balotra. (Lodged In Dist. Jail Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
Mr. Pradeep Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
10.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra by which
the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment
dated 01.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Balotra, District Barmer in Cr. Case No.353/2017
(738/2017), whereby the learned trial court convicted the
petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo two years RI along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo two months SI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.2017, complainant
Naresh Kumar submitted a written report at Police Station Balotra
to the effect that on 14.02.2017, his motorcycle was stolen by
unknown person, which was parked near PWD Campus. On the
said report, Police registered a case and started investigation.
[2025:RJ-JD:25035] (2 of 3) [CRLR-431/2025]
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court took
cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 379
IPC. Subsequently, charge was framed. The accused-petitioner
denied the charge and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as six witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in support
of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.02.2023 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 379 of IPC.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.03.2025. Hence
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2017 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of more then ten months, out of total
sentence of two years RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for
the offence under Section 379 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel
for the complainant 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25035] (3 of 3) [CRLR-431/2025]
accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in
the said case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments passed by the courts below.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2017 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of more than ten months incarceration, out of total
sentence of two years R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony
and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has
remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Section 379 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Section 379 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount is hereby maintained. The petitioner is in jail. On
deposition of the fine amount, the petitioner be released on bail
forthwith, if not required in any other. Otherwise, the appellant
shall serve the default sentence.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
98-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
