Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:25363) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:25363]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 164/2021
Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Moola Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By
Caste Mali, R/o Bhakkada, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
04.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.46/2019 (27/2020) by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in Cr. Regular Case No.655/2015,
whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 420 IPC 7 years SI Rs.2 lacs 6 months SI
2. 406 IPC 3 years SI Rs.2 lacs 6 months SI
[2025:RJ-JD:25363] (2 of 4) [CRLR-164/2021]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Dinesh Kumar &
Ors. filed a complaint against the present petitioner and other co-
accused before the concerned Court for offences under Sections
420, 406, 409, 120B IPC. The said complaint was sent under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station. Upon
which, FIR was registered and Police commenced investigation. On
completion of the Investigation, Police filed challan against the
petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for
offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 IPC against the accused-
petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as thirty-one witnesses and exhibited certain documents in
support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-
petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the
accused-petitioner produced some documentary evidence.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.08.2019 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 420 & 406 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 04.02.2021. 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 2015 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of more than one year and nine months, out
of total sentence of seven years S.I. In such circumstances, it is
[2025:RJ-JD:25363] (3 of 4) [CRLR-164/2021]
prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-
petitioner for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner. The learned PP 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.
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.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2015 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of more than one year and nine months incarceration, out
of total sentence of seven years S.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 a considerable time, it will be just
and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence
under Sections 420 & 406 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
Sections 420 & 406 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine imposed for offence under
Sections 420 & 406 IPC is reduced from Rs.4 lacs to Rs.20,000/-
[2025:RJ-JD:25363] (4 of 4) [CRLR-164/2021]
(Rs.10,000/- for each offence). Default sentence awarded for both
the offences is also reduced to 15 days SI.
Two months' time is granted to deposit the reduced fine
amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already
deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails
deposit the reduced fine amount, he shall undergo the reduced
default sentence of 15 days SI.
The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds are cancelled.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
101-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
