[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6294) on 4 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:6294]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1591/2025
Rahul Joshi S/o Narendra Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Loonkaransar At Present Choudhary Colony Ps Gangashahar
District Bikaner. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Gour
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/02/2026
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.11.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner in
Criminal Appeal No.26/2025, whereby the learned appellate court
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
16.07.2025 passed by learned Special Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (PCPNDT Act Cases), Bikaner in Criminal Case
No.248/2019; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the
offence under Section 379 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of
3 months'.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 01.06.2018,
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:46:40 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6294] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1591/2025]
PW-5 Mustak Ahmed submitted a written report Exp.5 at Police
Station Gangashahr (Bikaner). He stated in his report that at
present he is living in RIICO Road No.5, Bikaner he have
motorcycle in his bearing registration NO.RJ07-ST-2140, in the
morning of 28.04.2018 he stand his motorcycle opposite his house
and went for taking meal, approximately 15 mns after when he
came back then his motorcycle was not found at the place. On the
basis of above report Exp.5 SHO Police Station Gangashahar
registered a case as CR Case No.130/2018 for offence under
Section 379 of IPC and started the investigation. Police inspected
the site during investigation, recorded the statement of the
prosecution witnesses, accused petitioners were arrested by the
police on 28.06.2018 vide arrest memo Ex. P-6, but could not
found any recovery from petitioner, after interrogation produce
him before the concerned magistrate who sent him to Judical
Custody remand. Thereafter, released on bail.
After investigation, charge-sheet under Section 379 of IPC
was filed against the accused and thereafter, the case was
transferred to court of learned Special Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bikaner for trial.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to
prove the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses and
exhibited 10 documents. The accused, upon being confronted
with the prosecution evidence, in his statement under Section 313
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:46:40 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6294] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1591/2025]
CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No
evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned
Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the accused for offence under Section
379 of the IPC vide judgment dated 16.07.2025. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was
dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
06.11.2025 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court.
Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail
conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 2018. The petitioner was aged 33 years of
age at that time. The petitioner has already suffered agony of
protracted trial of 7 years. The petitioner remained in custody for
some time during trial. With these submissions, learned counsel
prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the
petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that he has
remained in judicial custody for some time.
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:46:40 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6294] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1591/2025]
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to
the year 2018. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of
the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of
protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 7 years and
has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.
He was 33 years at the time of the incident. He remained
incarcerated for some time during trial. In view of the facts noted
above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with
leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent
view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the
judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported
in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal
antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced
financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court
is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:46:40 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6294] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1591/2025]
imposed upon the petitioner for each count is reduced to the one
already undergone by him.
8. Accordingly, the judgment dated 06.11.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner in Criminal
Appeal No.26/2025, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
16.07.2025 passed by learned Special Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (PCPNDT Act Cases), Bikaner in Criminal Case
No.248/2019; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the
offence under Section 379 of the IPC, is modified to the extent
that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient
and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in
judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in
any other case.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Stay application and
all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
10. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
5-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 10:46:40 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
