Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Faim And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22007) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22007]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 687/2007
1. Faim S/o Anwar Hussain R/o Ghantaghar ke Paas, Kota.
2. Salim S/o Akbar Hussain R/o Ghantaghar ke Paas, P.S.
Makbara Kota Shahar, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Danish Sherani
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/05/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner No.1 -
Faim passed away and submitted his death certificate which is
hereby taken on record.
2. In these circumstances, the present criminal revision petition
in respect of petitioner No.1 - Faim is dismissed as abated.
3. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.62/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara,
Camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court')
by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's
appeal, upheld the judgment dated 05.10.2004 passed in Criminal
Case No.1812/2003 by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Jahajpur, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court')
whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
present petitioner as under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:22007] (2 of 4) [CRLR-687/2007]
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 454 IPC 3 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- each 3 months' S.I.
Section 380 IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- each 3 months' S.I.
4. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2003, complainant
Basant Kumar filed a complaint inter alia alleging that some
unknown persons unauthorisedly entered his house at about 3 PM
and committed a theft at his house and stolen some cash and
jwellery. On this report, Police registered a case against the
accused petitioner for offences under Section 454 & 380 IPC and
started investigation.
6. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC against the
petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the
accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
8. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.10.2004 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
9. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2007.
[2025:RJ-JD:22007] (3 of 4) [CRLR-687/2007]
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
10. 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 2003 and out of total
sentence of three years' S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served more than two years of imprisonment, therefore, it is
prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the
aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than two
years 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 petitioner has
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 and 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:22007] (4 of 4) [CRLR-687/2007]
14. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offences under Sections
454 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is
hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender.
His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
15. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
20-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
