Partly allowed

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal v. State

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2023CRLR/351/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for theft, the High Court commuted the imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine order, citing mental trauma from the protracted trial.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; bail bonds discharged; three months time granted to deposit fine.

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44086]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 351/2013

¶4

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal S/o Shri Roopaji, B/c Bheel, R/o Gangaguda, PS Kelwada, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶5

(At present lodged in District Jail, Rajsamand)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sarupariya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Judgment

¶13

15/12/2023

¶14

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.05.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Regular Case No.247/2009, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under : Offence U/s 457 IPC : Two years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ S.I. Offence U/s 380 IPC : One year’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further two months’ S.I.

¶15

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[2023:RJ-JD:44086]

[CRLR-351/2013]

(2 of 4)

Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2009, complainant Shyamlal Vaishnav submitted a written report before Police Station Kelwara to the effect that he is a ‘ Pujari’ at Mateshwar Mahadev Temple. In the intervening night of 08.10.2009, some unknown persons unlawfully entered in the temple and committed theft. On this report, the police registered the case against unknown accused persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC and started investigation. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the accused-persons including the present petitioner.

¶20

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-persons including the petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶21

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioner were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 08.04.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.

¶23

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.05.2013. Hence this revision petition.

¶24

At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the

[2023:RJ-JD:44086]

[CRLR-351/2013]

(3 of 4)

occurrence relates back to year 2009 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about three months, out of total sentence of two years’ S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

¶30

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

¶31

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2009 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of about three months incarceration, out of total sentence of two years S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for

[CRLR-351/2013]

[2023:RJ-JD:44086]

(4 of 4)

offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is hereby granted to deposit the fine, failing which the petitioner shall undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶37

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶39

251-MS/-

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreemant Mahish @ Chanki S/O Shri Pramod Nath Mahish Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugan Singh S/O Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil S/O Virendra Vs the State of Rajashtan

Nainu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nayeem and Anr. Vs State

Neelam Vs Amit Gharu