Partly allowed

Sohan Lal @ Sonu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 May 2023CRLR/165/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 132 Cr.P.C. revision petition, the High Court condoned condonation as barred by limitation due to custody. The Court maintained the conviction but commuted the sentence by considering past incarceration, citing Supreme Court precedents, and ordered immediate release unless wanted in another case.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the term of imprisonment already undergone; petitioner ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Sohan Lal @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014088]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 165/2023

¶4

Sohan Lal @ Sonu S/o Chatru Banjara, Aged About 34 Years, Gordhanpura, P.s. Bijoliya, Dist. Bhilwara (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

08/05/2023

¶13

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Camp Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.35/2018 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 73/2014; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 454 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/and in default, he has been directed to further undergo six months' of additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

The defect of non-filing of the affidavit is over-ruled in view of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody.

[2023/RJJD/014088]

[CRLR-165/2023]

(2 of 5)

The revision petition is time barred by 49 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

¶19

Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶20

It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars and there was no one to pursue his cause and to render legal assistance to him, therefore, he was deprived from filing the petition within the stipulated period.

¶21

Considering the submissions advanced and the grounds mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

¶22

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is being heard and decided today.

¶23

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.03.2014, an FIR No.80/2014 came to be lodged at the Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara at the instance of the complainant – Shanti Lal alleging therein that the two persons broke into his house and committed theft. They were caught by the villagers and handed over to the police and they were arrested. No recovery was made from the petitioner. After usual investigation, chargesheet came to be submitted against him under Section 454 of IPC.

¶24

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.

[2023/RJJD/014088]

[CRLR-165/2023]

(3 of 5)

During the course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Section 454 of the IPC vide judgment dated 30.06.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Both these judgments are under assail before this court in the instant revision petition.

¶29

Learned counsel Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2014. He had remained in jail for some time during the proceedings of trial and thereafter, he is in custody since 08.09.2022, i.e. from the date of judgment passed in appeal. Other than the present one, only one other case for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC has been reported against him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a weaker person of the society. He was a young boy on the date of incident and presently he is 34 years old. He is facing trial since the year 2014 and he has languished in jail for more than 8 months, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

[2023/RJJD/014088]

[CRLR-165/2023]

(4 of 5)

Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for more than 8 months and only one other case for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

¶34

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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶35

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true that the petitioner is behind the bars since last 8 months. He has been shown to be indulged in only one other case, which is for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed 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 circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered more than 8 months' incarceration out of the sentence of 3 years imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.

(5 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/014088]

[CRLR-165/2023]

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 73/2014 as well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Camp Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.35/2018 dated 08.09.2022 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court 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.

¶40

The revision petition is allowed in part.

¶41

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶42

Record be sent back to the trial court.

¶43

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶44

204-Pramod/-

Sohan Lal @ Sonu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Lal @ Sonu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanni @ Nagendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Subodh Kalyani Vs State of Rajasthan

Shamina Bano Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindrakumar Sharma Vs Gautam Bohra

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan