Partly allowed

Durga and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2024CRLR/1000/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against conviction of four petitioners for house-breaking and theft. Bherulal was prematurely released after serving sentence, so the matter closed qua him. Convictions of the other three were affirmed but sentence reduced to already undergone; no further sentence required.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of Durga, Manya and Amrya reduced to period already undergone; petition disposed of as to Bherulal.

Durga and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42709]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1000/2005

¶4

Durga S/o Chotu R/o Naee Basti, Khatupura, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur.

¶5

Manya S/o Ramkaran R/o Naee Basti, Khatupura, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur.

¶6

Amrya S/o Jagannath R/o Naee Basti, Khatupura, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

Bherulal S/o Pannalal R/o Dhamana, Police Station Fagi, District Jaipur.

¶8

----Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Rajasthan

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

09/10/2024

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted report received from Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur which indicate that after undergoing substantial part of sentence petitioner accused Bherulal was released pre-maturely on occasion of Rajasthan Day on 30.03.2006. As a result, the petitioner Bherulal was released on 15.04.2006. After receipt of this report from Central Jail, Bharatpur, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not press the order of conviction relating to Bherulal and he accepts the conviction in the matter.

¶17

After consideration of aforesaid, the matter stands closed qua Bherulal and nothing survives with regard to Behru Lal. The

[2024:RJ-JP:42709]

[CRLR-1000/2005]

(2 of 4)

report received from Central Jail, Bharatpur is taken on record. Now, the revision petition will continue qua Durga, Manya and Amrya.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted report received from Central Jail, Bharatpur which indicate that these petitioners Durga, Manya and Amrya have already served part sentence i.e. more than three months and thereafter they were released when SOS was allowed.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that these three petitioners are from a community which does not have permanent residence and they are just like gypsies who shift their work place from one place to another in search of their livelihood. He submits that there is no criminal antecedents against any of three petitioners.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted report received from concerned police station. We have taken note of same.

¶25

During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not press challenge for conviction on behalf of Durga, Manya and Amrya but he prays that the sentence awarded to these petitioners be reduced in such a manner that these petitioners may not require to undertake any further sentence and they be released on period already undergone by them in pursuant to order of sentence passed by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶27

The petitioners Durga, Manya and Amrya were convicted under Sections 457 and 380 IPC by learned Additional Chief

[2024:RJ-JP:42709]

[CRLR-1000/2005]

(3 of 4)

Judicial Magistrate in criminal case no. 65/2004 on 11.10.2004. The judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed in criminal appeal no. 16/2005 (82/2004) and 17/2005 (77/2004) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur on 21.09.2005.

¶32

A perusal of report registered by complainant Sanjay on 03.03.2004 and also subsequent evidence in a matter arising out of FIR no. 78/2004 at P.S. Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur also reflect that the FMCG (goods) were stolen from the grocery shop of complainant and prosecution was able to establish its case before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 10. After considering the submissions, the order of conviction qua petitioners Durga, Manya and Amrya under Section 457 and 380 IPC is liable to be affirmed.

¶33

We have considered the quantum of sentence particularly in light of the fact that the petitioners have already undergone more than three months. There is no specific criminal antecedents available on record. Moreover, a prayer to grant probation was also made before the trial court and trial court has refused to release petitioners on probation. A claim was made that this was the first offence of these petitioners.

¶34

Having considered over all circumstances of the case and the facts arising out of the entire proceedings, I am of the considered view that the period of sentence awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is liable to be reduced to already undergone.

¶35

As a result, the judgment of conviction under Sections 457 and 380 IPC qua Durga, Manya and Amrya is hereby affirmed but

[2024:RJ-JP:42709]

[CRLR-1000/2005]

(4 of 4)

the revision petition is partly allowed in respect of order of sentence passed by learned trial court on 11.10.2004 and affirmed by the Appellate Court on 21.09.2005. Thus, the sentence awarded by learned trial court is reduced to already undergone by the petitioners Durga, Manya and Amrya. After set off as provided under the law, the petitioners are not required to serve any further sentence in the instant matter.

¶40

The revision petition with regard to Bherulal is disposed of in light of his pre-mature release after serving sentence. 15. With aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of.

¶41

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶42

CHETNA BEHRANI /9

Durga and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga and Ors. 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

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu @ Rakesh Sharma S/O Shri Badri Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Sharma S/O Shri Bachchu Singh Sharma Vs Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Anandi Lal Sharma

Nand Kishore Vs Rajendra Kumar and Anr.

Sheoraf Khan Vs State

Rajkumar Jain Vs Babulal Soni and Anr.