Partly allowed

Subhash Urf Kanchhya Urf Luchya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2015CRLR/1015/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition regarding robbery conviction. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction, the court ordered a sentence reduction for time spent in custody and directed immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced for period undergone; accused ordered to be released forthwith if not required in other cases.

Subhash Urf Kanchhya Urf Luchya Vs State of… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1015/2013 S.B. Cr. Misc. IInd Suspension of Sentence Application No. 211/2015 (Subhash @ Kanchhya @ Luchya @ Manoharya @ Subhash @ Suresh Bawariya Versus The State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Judgment :: 3^rd September, 2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Mr. Narpat Singh, for the petitioner Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State

¶9

This this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 16.9.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 63/2013, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order dated 30.7.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Case No. 92/2012, whereby he while acquitting the co-accused Hardayal @ Dayal @ Kalya @ Hardev, convicted the accused person for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' SI.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that on 9.11.2012, Ghanshyam Sharma submitted a written report at Police Station, Andhi. On the basis of said report, the police registered FIR No. 104/2012 for the offence under Section 382 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the

¶11

¶12

police filed the challan against the accused persons for the offence under Section 392 IPC. Thereafter the charges were framed against accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got recorded their statements. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 30.7.2013 while acquitting the accused person Hardayal @ Dayal @ Kalya @ Hardev, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated here-in-above.

¶13

Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The appellate court, vide judgment/order dated 16.9.2013 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not rightly appreciated the evidence submitted by the petitioner. He has further contended that neither any recovery of the stolen jewellery was made from the petitioner nor he was subjected to test identification parade, therefore, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He has further contended that there is no eye witness in this incident, hence the petitioner should be acquitted, if not, then he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment

¶15

¶16

of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 2012; the petitioner is facing the trial since the year 2012; he is married person and having the children; it is the first offence of his life; he is not the habitual offender; he is an agriculturist; the co-accused has been acquitted; the accused petitioner has remained in custody from the last 2 years and 10 months; the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class; he is the only person in his family to earn the livelihood, hence he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.

¶17

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated above.

¶20

Hence, I pass the following order:

¶21

i) The criminal revision is partly allowed.

¶22

ii)The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.

¶23

¶24

iii)The sentence of accused petitioner is reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated here-in-above. iv) The accused petitioner is in jail. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶25

Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.

¶26

The IInd suspension of sentence application of the petitioner also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

¶28

¶29

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA

Subhash Urf Kanchhya Urf Luchya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Urf Kanchhya Urf Luchya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amita Patel Vs State Medical and Healthors

Suresh Chand Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs S K D Agarwal

Manoj Kumar SHARMAandORS Vs State Home Departmentors

Pooran Singh Seera Vs State Home Departmentors

Suresh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp