[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Roshan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6244) on 3 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:6244]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1595/2025

Roshan Lal S/o Surajmal Bavri, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
Of Ghaslo Ka Kheda, Thana Bhadsora, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms. Priya Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

03/02/2026

1. The present criminal revision petition is preferred under

Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 397 read with

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), assailing the

judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal

No. 01/2023 (229/2015), whereby the appeal preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and sentence dated

24.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan in

Regular Criminal Case No. 23/2010, arising out of FIR No.

35/2010, Police Station Akola, District Chittorgarh, convicting the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6244] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1595/2025]

imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the

offence under Section 457 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two

years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 380

IPC, with further default stipulations, has been affirmed.

2. At the outset, the application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 289 days in filing

the present revision petition is taken up for consideration. It is

averred therein that during the relevant period the petitioner was

in judicial custody and, therefore, could not take effective steps

for filing the revision within the prescribed period of limitation. The

explanation so furnished is supported by the record. This Court is

satisfied that sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of

the Limitation Act has been made out. Accordingly, the delay of

289 days in filing the revision petition is condoned and the

application stands allowed.

3. The revision petition is thereafter taken up for consideration

on merits.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an incident of

theft took place during the night hours in the year 2010, in which

goats belonging to the complainant were stolen. On the basis of

the report lodged, an FIR was registered and after completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The

petitioner was put to trial and, upon appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, the learned trial court, vide

judgment dated 24.09.2015, convicted the petitioner for the

offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6244] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1595/2025]

sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred a criminal appeal, which came to be dismissed by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024,

affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

by the trial court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter

to some extent, does not press the revision petition on the

question of conviction and confines the submissions to the

quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the occurrence in question pertains to the year 2010 and the

petitioner has remained entangled in criminal proceedings for a

considerable length of time. It is urged that the petitioner has

remained incarcerated in the present case for a period of more

than 10 months during trial and after passing of the appeal and

presently, he is in custody. It is submitted that the petitioner is not

a habitual offender and there is no material on record to indicate

any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submits that

the value of the stolen property was not of a grave magnitude and

that the petitioner has already suffered the rigours of prolonged

litigation as well as incarceration and that the ends of justice

would be adequately met if the sentence imposed upon the

petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the revision

petition. It was submitted that the courts below have correctly

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6244] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1595/2025]

appreciated the evidence on record and that no interference is

warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Although the revision petition is not pressed on the question

of conviction, this Court has examined the record of the learned

trial court as well as the learned appellate court for its own

satisfaction. Upon such examination, no perversity, illegality or

material irregularity is found in the findings of guilt recorded by

the courts below. The appreciation of evidence appears to be

proper and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the judgment of

conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457

and 380 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.

8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in the present case

pertains to the year 2010, wherein the petitioner was convicted

for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal

Code arising out of an incident of theft of goats from the premises

of the complainant during night hours. The nature of the offence,

as emerging from the record, does not involve violence or use of

deadly weapons and pertains to theft of livestock of limited value.

The petitioner has faced the rigours of trial, appeal and the

present revision for a considerable length of time. The record

further reveals that the petitioner remained in custody during the

course of trial and, after passing of the judgment in appeal, has

further undergone incarceration for a period of about ten months.

It is also noticed that the petitioner belongs to the downtrodden

section of society and has limited means. There is nothing on

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6244] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1595/2025]

record to indicate that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that

he has any criminal antecedents. The prolonged pendency of

proceedings has resulted in mental agony and hardship to the

petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the case of the petitioner

deserves to be dealt with leniency and the petitioner is entitled to

the benefit of the consistent view taken by this Court in such

matters. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West

Bengal, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678, and Alister Anthony

Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 2 SCC

648, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, and

the overall circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed

upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by

him.

9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the

learned trial court as well as the judgment upholding the same

passed by the learned appellate court is affirmed, but the

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the

above-mentioned offences is modified to the extent that the

sentence undergone by the petitioner till date would be sufficient

and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in

custody. He shall be released forthwith in not wanted in any other

case.





                     (Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)

                                    [2026:RJ-JD:6244]                   (6 of 6)                        [CRLR-1595/2025]


                                   10.   The revision petition is allowed in part.                       All pending

applications including the application seeking suspension of

sentence are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 70-Pramod/-

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:23:11 PM)