Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopalram And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24805) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24805]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1135/2007
1. Gopal Ram S/o Amra Ram, by caste Meghwal, R/o Ward
No.11, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.
2. Shivlal S/o Amra Ram, by caste Meghwal, R/o Bangadsar, P.S.
Bajju, District Bikaner.
3. Fakira Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, by caste Meghwal, R/o
Bangadsar, P.S. Bajju, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
03.10.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, (hereinafter referred to as
'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.25/2005 by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld
the judgment dated 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular
Case No.321/2000, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the present petitioners as under :-
[2025:RJ-JD:24805] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2007]
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 397/411 IPC One year's RI Rs.500/- each in default of
payment, further undergo three
months' additional R.I.
Sec. 25 of One year's RI Rs.500/- each, in default of
Telegraph Act payment, further undergone
three months' additional R.I.
Both the sentences for all the accused petitioners were
ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.1999 complainant
Vinod Kumar Sharma gave a written report to the Police Station
Srivijaynagar to the effect that a Lineman went to Railway Control
Line then he found that some articles of the Telecom department had
been stolen by some persons. On this report, the police registered
the case against accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379
IPC and Section 25 of Telegraph Act and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections
379/411 IPC and Section 25 of Telegraph Act. Thereafter, the
charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioners,
who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 04.05.2005 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
[2025:RJ-JD:24805] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2007]
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.10.2007. Hence,
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 1999 and the petitioners have so
far suffered a sentence of about seven (07) days, out of total
sentence of one year's R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for
the offence under Section 379/411 of IPC and Section 25 of
Telegraph Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
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-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1999 and the accused-petitioners has so far undergone a
period of seven (07) days' incarceration, out of total sentence of
one year's 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-petitioners have remained behind the
bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the
[2025:RJ-JD:24805] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2007]
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section
379/411 of IPC and Section 25 of Telegraph Act and affirmed by
the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for
offence under Section 379/411 of IPC and Section 25 of Telegraph
Act, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offences are
hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount,
as imposed by the learned trial court is hereby waived. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
32-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
