Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manchha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24806) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24806]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 606/2021
1. Manchha Ram S/o Sh. Chhagan Lal, Aged About 43 Years,
B/c Mali, R/o Goyali, Sirohi, Tehsil And District Sirohi
(Raj.). (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur).
2. Chhagan Lal S/o Sh. Babu Lal, Aged About 73 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Goyali, Sirohi, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
07.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.88/2017 (26/2017) by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners
and upheld the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in Cr. Regular Case No.105/2016,
whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
petitioners as under :
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 420 IPC 5 years RI Rs.2 lacs 1 year SI
2. 406 IPC 3 years RI Rs.50,000/- 3 months SI
[2025:RJ-JD:24806] (2 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2015, complainant
Smt. Gangaben filed a complaint against the petitioners before the
concerned Court for offences under Sections 420, 406, 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 petitioners for
offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B IPC. Thereafter, the
trial court framed the charge against the accused-petitioners, who
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 17.01.2017 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.09.2019. Hence
this revision petition.
Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court about the
demise of petitioner No.2--Chhagan Lal on 03.11.2023. A copy of
his death certificate has been supplied to this Court, which is
taken on record.
In these circumstances, the criminal revision qua petitioner
No.2 Chhagan Lal is hereby dismissed as abated.
[2025:RJ-JD:24806] (3 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
So far as the petitioner No.1--Manchha Ram is concerned, at
the threshold, counsel submits that he does not challenge the
finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates
back to year 2015 and the petitioner No.1 has so far suffered a
sentence of more than three years, out of total sentence of five
years R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive
sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.1 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-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioners 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 No.1 has so far undergone a
period of more than three years incarceration, out of total
sentence of five 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 No.1 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24806] (4 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner No.1--Manchha
Ram 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 Section 420 IPC is reduced from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.10,000/-
and for offence under Section 406 IPC is reduced from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. 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
No.1 fails deposit the reduced fine amount, he shall undergo the
reduced default sentence of 15 days SI.
The petitioner No.1 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
49-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
