Partly allowed

Suraj Bhan v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024CRLR/820/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court maintained the conviction for theft under Section 379 IPC but reduced the sentence to expire on the date of the judgment order, considering the 23-year trial delay and the petitioner's confinement. The fine was directed to be deposited.

What did the court decide?

Worded as [Math]The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Bail bonds are cancelled. [

Suraj Bhan Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37280]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 820/2005

¶4

Suraj Bhan son of Bala Ram, resident of Kangal Hatha, Police Station Sadar, District Alwar, Presently confined in Judicial Custody at District Jail, Alwar

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/09/2024

¶13

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the judgment 05.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2), Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.17/2005, whereby the said Court modified the judgment dated 24.04.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.) No.1, Alwar in Criminal Case No.128/2001 (134/2003), and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC, reduced his sentence to one year's simple imprisonment. The fine of Rs. 5,000/- as levied by the trial Court has been maintained by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 05.07.2005.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence

[2024:RJ-JP:37280]

[CRLR-820/2005]

(2 of 3)

awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by him. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Addl. G A appearing for the State has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶21

Since the present 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 the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶22

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about 23 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that he faced financial

[2024:RJ-JP:37280]

[CRLR-820/2005]

(3 of 3)

hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.04.2004 and affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 05.07.2005 with the learned trial Court, if no already deposited, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled accordingly.

¶29

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶30

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶31

Tahir/8

Suraj Bhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Bhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ramkishore Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Dharamsingh S/O Sitaram , Vs State of Rajasthan

Banshilal Vs State and Ors.

Rajkumar S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Amitabh Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.