Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22161) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22161]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 661/2024
Vinod S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 10,
Ravatsar, Tehsil Ravatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Mertia
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
08/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
14.10.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
court') in Criminal Appeal No.84/2017 by which the appellate
court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the
judgment of sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ravatsar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
court') in Criminal Case No.116/2007 (CIS No.1690/2014)
whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner
for offence under Section 382 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
three years' RI along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo six months' SI.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant submitted a written
complaint at concerned Police Station to the effect that on
[2025:RJ-JD:22161] (2 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024]
13.12.2006 at about 7.00 P.M. while returning home from his shop,
he was carying a bag containing some rupees, keys and other
personal articles. When he reached at Kesariya Mandir, Ward No.16
Ravatsar, two individuals came there and snatched his bag and fled
away. On this report, the police registered the case against accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 382 IPC.
Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the
accused-petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-person was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 16.11.2017 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.10.2022 and
upheld the sentence of the petitioner awarded by the trial court.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned trial Court committed grave error in convicting
the petitioner. He also submits that prosecution fails to prove his
case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt
[2025:RJ-JD:22161] (3 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024]
should be given in favour of accused-petitioner. It is further
argued that without considering the fact that earlier, Police
submitted negative final report and without protest petition the
Police re-investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the
petitioner and other co-accused. Therefore, the petitioner may be
acquitted in the present case. He further submits that the accused
petitioner has served one year, seven months and twenty-nine
days of sentence, out of total sentence of three years, therefore,
in alternate it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
petitioner for the aforesaid offence 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 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced
to a period of three years' rigorous imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of one year, seven
months and twenty-nine days, 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
he has remained behind the bars for more than one year, seven
months and twenty-nine days, it will be just and proper if the
[2025:RJ-JD:22161] (4 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024]
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 382
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 382 IPC the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court is hereby
waived. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is decided accordingly.
Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
78-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
