The High Court of Rajasthan allowed this revision petition to reduce the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone in custody while maintaining the conviction and fine amount for theft and theft from a dwelling house offences.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; deposit directed; release possible upon fine payment.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:225]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1618/2023
Dharamveer S/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Shahpuriya, P.s. Chopata, P.s. Nathusari Chopta, Dist. Sirsa, Haryana. (Presently Lodged In Jail- Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
03/01/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 17.11.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal CIS No.110/2023 by learned Additional Session Judge No.2, Nohar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court partly allowed the petitioner’s appeal and while affirming the conviction of the petitioner, reduced his sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 02.11.2023 in Cr. Case No.206/2016 (CIS No.279/2016). Details of the sentence as reduced by the appellate court for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC are as under :
Offence U/s 457 IPC : Two years & three months’ S.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s S.I.
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:225]
[CRLR-1618/2023]
Offence U/s 380 IPC : Two years & three months’ S.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2016, complainant Dharampal submitted a report before the Police Station Nohar to the effect that in the intervening night of 12.01.2016, some unknown persons committed theft in his liquor shop and stole liquor boxes amounting to Rs.1,99,000/-. On this report, Police registered a case against unknown persons for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the Police.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioner and other accused-persons. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused persons including the petitioner for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioner were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2023 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide its judgment dated 17.11.2023 and while maintaining the conviction
[2024:RJ-JD:225]
[CRLR-1618/2023]
(3 of 4)
of the petitioner for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC, reduced his sentence. Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2016 and out of total sentence of two years & three months’ S.I., the accused petitioner has already served ten months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner and 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.
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.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2016 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of ten months in custody, out of total sentence of two years and three months, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and as reduced by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the appellate court.
[2024:RJ-JD:225]
[CRLR-1618/2023]
(4 of 4)
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the appellate court is hereby maintained. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The petitioner is in jail. If the petitioner deposits the fine amount, he may be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
173-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the convicted petitioner should be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Whether the fine amount imposed by the appellate court should be maintained.
Dharamveer S/o Shri Balwant Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Dharampal S/o Shri Vijay Singh
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
