[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Imran Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5701) on 29 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:5700]
[2026:RJ-JD:5701]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1734/2025

Imran @ Ghesu S/o Abdul Vakil Musalman, Aged About 30 Years,
Sindhivada Gadhi, At Present Suraj                     Pole Choki     Ke Pass,
Loharvada Makranivad, Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara
Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                ----Respondent
                             Connected With


            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1411/2024

 Saddam S/o Shri Raees Kha, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward
 No. 13, Husani Chok Kali Kalayan Dham, P.s. Kotwali, Dist.
 Banswara,raj. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1306/2024
 Imran Khan S/o Raseed Khan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
 Chhatariya, Indira Colony, Ps Kotwali, Dist. Banswara (Lodged
 In Dist. Jail Banswara)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Amandeep Lamba
                               Mr. Vijay Gaur
                               Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
                               Mr. Devendra Sanwlot
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.



                     (Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)
                    (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 07:29:13 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:5700]                     (2 of 7)                        [CRLR-1734/2025]


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

29/01/2026

1. The present batch of three Criminal Revision Petitions is filed

by the petitioners seeking to challenge the legality and propriety

of the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Banswara, dated 30.09.2024, in Criminal Appeal No.57/2019,

which upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 457

and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for house-breaking

and theft. The conviction was originally pronounced by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, on 19.032019, in Regular

Criminal Case No.935/2018 (State vs. Saddam & Ors.). The

petitioners were sentenced to three years of rigorous

imprisonment for each count, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and

a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment.

1.1. The petitioners, aggrieved by both the conviction and the

sentence, contend that the lower courts have erred in appreciating

the evidence, overlooked material discrepancies, and that the

conviction was unjustly imposed, causing significant harm to their

fundamental rights. They seek the quashing of the impugned

orders and their acquittal, asserting that the charges against them

are unsubstantiated and the trial process constitutes an abuse of

judicial power.

1.2. Regarding the delay in filing the Revision Petition,

(1734/2025) which was made 353 days after the due date, the

petitioners' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay is allowed, after due consideration of the

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5700] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1734/2025]

circumstances. As a result, the Revision Petition(1734/2025) is

admitted, and the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

2. The case emanates from a complaint lodged by the

complainant, which led to the registration of FIR No.147/2018

under Section 380 IPC, pertaining to the offence of theft. Upon the

registration of the FIR, an investigation was conducted,

culminating in the filing of a charge sheet by the police, alleging

that the petitioners had committed house-breaking and theft

under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court

took cognizance of the offences, framed charges, and the

petitioners pleaded not guilty, asserting their innocence and

requesting a trial.

2.1. The prosecution presented eight witnesses and produced 15

documentary exhibits to substantiate its case. The petitioners'

statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they

denied the charges and refuted the evidence put forth by the

prosecution. Despite these contentions, the learned Trial Court

convicted the petitioners, which was subsequently upheld by the

learned Appellate Court. Hence the instant revision petitions.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has contended vehemently that

the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter due to

personal animosity, and that there exists no Mens Rea (guilty

mind), thereby rendering the charges under Sections 457 and 380

IPC unsustainable. It was further submitted that the FIR was

lodged a full month after the alleged incident, and no satisfactory

explanation for this delay was provided, which casts serious doubt

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5700] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1734/2025]

on the credibility of the complaint. Moreover, it was argued that

the prosecution's witnesses were either interested or inherently

biased, failing to provide impartial or credible testimony. The

complainant himself admitted that similar items such as bags and

mobile phones, were readily available in the market, thus

weakening the prosecution's assertion that the stolen property

was unique to the complainant. Additionally, the recovery evidence

was fraught with inconsistencies, and the delay in the

investigation remains unexplained and unjustifiable.

3.1. It is further argued that these significant deficiencies in the

prosecution's case warrant the quashing of the impugned orders

and their acquittal, as the charges against them are not

substantiated by credible evidence and the entire legal process

amounts to an abuse of judicial power.

4. On the other hand, the learned Dy.G.A. for the State argued

that the charges under Sections 457 and 380 IPC were

substantiated by credible witness testimonies and the recovery of

stolen property. The delay in filing the FIR, while unfortunate, did

not affect the case's credibility. The prosecution witnesses

consistently corroborated the events, and the availability of similar

items in the market does not undermine the case, as the stolen

property could still be distinct. The recovery of stolen goods was

substantiated, and any discrepancies were minor and did not

diminish the evidential value. It was further argued that the

petitioners' actions clearly demonstrated Mens Rea, and claims of

malicious prosecution were unfounded.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5700] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1734/2025]

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the niceties of the matter.

6. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous examination of the

arguments advanced by both parties, along with an exhaustive

review of the entire case file, this Court, having taken into account

all the relevant facts, legal principles, and precedents, is inclined

to make the following observations and findings:

6.1. It is noteworthy that the petitioners stand before this Court

as individuals without any prior criminal antecedents, a fact that

was duly acknowledged by the defence during the course of the

proceedings. This absence of a criminal record is a significant

factor, particularly in the context of sentencing, as it reflects the

petitioners' conduct in society before the alleged commission of

the offence. The lack of prior involvement in criminal activities not

only calls for a more lenient approach but also aligns with the

overarching goal of rehabilitation, which is an integral facet of

modern penal philosophy.

6.2. However, upon reviewing the evidence, this Court finds that

both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court failed

to adequately scrutinise certain material discrepancies within the

prosecution's case. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR,

which occurred approximately one month after the alleged

incident, remains a matter of concern, as it raises legitimate

doubts about the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, the

evidence presented by the prosecution was not free from

contradictions, particularly with regard to the purported recovery

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5700] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1734/2025]

of stolen goods and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,

who were shown to be either biased or inherently interested. This

Court is compelled to observe that such inconsistencies, which

went unaddressed by the lower courts, are of such significance

that they cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the entire

prosecution case.

6.3. The imposition of a sentence of three years' rigorous

imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, without fully considering

the reformative approach prescribed by contemporary

jurisprudence, is manifestly disproportionate to the facts of this

case. Given that the petitioners are first-time offenders, devoid of

any prior criminal history, the sentence imposed by the learned

Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court appears to be

unduly harsh, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of

the significant doubts that surround the prosecution's evidence.

6.4. In light of the above considerations, this Court, with due

regard to the principles of justice and mercy, finds it appropriate

to modify the sentence. Considering the age and personal

circumstances of the petitioners, the significant delay in lodging

the FIR, the fact that they have already undergone substantial

incarceration, and the evident deficiencies in the prosecution's

case, this Court deems it just to reduce the sentence to the period

already undergone by the petitioners. It is important to

underscore that the objectives of sentencing are not only to

punish but also to reform and rehabilitate, and in this case, where

the petitioners have already endured a substantial period of

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5700] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1734/2025]

detention, further incarceration would not advance the cause of

justice or serve the ends of penology.