In this special criminal revision petition, the High Court reduced the sentence of two accused-petitioners convicted of theft to the period they had already served in custody, while maintaining the fine amount imposed by the appellate court.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; petitioners on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:42683]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 525/2003
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Gehlot for |
|---|---|
| Mr. Pradeep Shah | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with Mr. CP Marwan |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/12/2023
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal No.13/2003 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court partly allowed the petitioners’ appeal and instead of offence under Section 392 IPC, it convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months’ RI each and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s R.I.
Whereas, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) vide judgment
[2023:RJ-JD:42683]
[CRLR-525/2003]
(2 of 4)
dated 04.02.2003 passed in Cr. Case No.525/2001 convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year’s RI and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ RI.
By this revision petition, the petitioners also challenge the judgment of the trial court.
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2001 at about 9:15 PM, complainant Smt. Karuna Pathak submitted a report before concerned Police Station to the effect that on 25.05.2001 in the evening, when she and her husband were going on scooter, two persons came on a motorcycle from behind and snatched her gold chain and ran away. On this report, Police registered a case against unknown persons for offence under Section 392 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, the petitioners were arrested by the Police.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Section 392 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined in defence.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 04.02.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.
[2023:RJ-JD:42683]
[CRLR-525/2003]
(3 of 4)
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide its judgment dated 19.06.2003 and instead of convicting the petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC, convicted them for offence under Section 379 IPC and also reduced the sentence as aforesaid. Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2001 and out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., the accused petitioners have already served three months and eighteen days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioners for the offence under Section 379 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
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-petitioners.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2001 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of three months and eighteen days in custody, out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
[2023:RJ-JD:42683]
[CRLR-525/2003]
(4 of 4)
petitioners have remained behind the bars for three months and eighteen days, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the appellate court for offence under Section 379 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the appellate court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under Section 379 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the appellate court is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one months’ RI. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
197-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court for theft should be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused.
Whether the fine imposed by the appellate court should be maintained.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirdosh Singh
Ratan Lal
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
