Partly allowed¶32

Kanhiya Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2025CRLR/199/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 379 IPC theft of motorcycle; sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; old case of 2005 incident; ~20-year pendency; revision under S.397 r/w S.401 CrPC; reliance on Alister Anthony Pareira (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das (1998) 9 SCC 678; bail bonds discharged; CJM Jhalawar CRC No.339/2005; Special Judge SC/ST Cases Jhalawar Appeal No.71/2005; Kanhiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed: conviction under Section 379 IPC maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner on bail need not surrender and bail bonds stand discharged; pending application(s) disposed of; trial court record to be sent back forthwith. ¶32

Kanhiya Lal Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of the learned Trial Court regarding conviction and sentence are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on record and warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction (challenge to conviction ultimately not pressed). +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since the revision petition against conviction was not pressed and nothing requiring interference in the finding of guilt was noticed on perusal of the material, the Court declined to interfere and maintained the judgment of conviction.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

On quantum of sentence, guided by Alister Anthony Pareira (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das (1998) 9 SCC 678, and considering the 2005 incident, about 20 years of protracted trial, incarceration from 12.04.2005 to 26.05.2005, no other pending case, and the petitioner's age, status in society, financial hardship and mental agony, the Court held that ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction; the petitioner, being on bail, need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 199/2006, decided 05/02/2025 (Vinod Kumar Bharwani, J.). Petitioner, convicted under Section 379 IPC (theft of a motorcycle, FIR No.99/2005, P.S. Kotwali, Jhalawar) by the CJM, Jhalawar (judgment dt.02.08.2005: two years RI + fine Rs.2000/-), whose sentence was reduced by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar (judgment dt.14.02.2006 in Crl. Appeal No.71/2005: one year SI + fine Rs.1000/-), challenged both judgments under Sections 397/401 CrPC. The challenge to conviction was not pressed and the conviction was maintained. On sentence, noting the incident pertains to 2005, a protracted trial of around 20 years, incarceration from 12.04.2005 to 26.05.2005, no other pending case, and the petitioner's age, status, financial hardship and mental agony, and guided by Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal (1998) 9 SCC 678, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, discharged his bail bonds and directed he need not surrender.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5154]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 199/2006

¶4

Kanhiya Lal son of Shri Sugrain resident of Nandiya-kheri Police Station Jhalarapatan District Jhalawar (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadaun, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, G.A.cum AAG with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶11

05/02/2025 :

¶12

By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/ accused has challenged the judgment dt.02.08.2005 passed by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Criminal Regular Case No.339/2005 whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. & sentenced him to undergo two year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- & in default of payment thereof, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶13

The petitioner/accused has also challenged the judgment dt.14.02.2006 passed by the Court Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, in Criminal Appeal Nos.71/2005, whereby the ld. Judge, has partly allowed the appeal, while reducing the sentence from two years to one year simple imprisonment & fine from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/- & in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

[2025:RJ-JP:5154]

[CRLR-199/2006]

(2 of 4)

In compliance of the order dt.22.01.2025, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted the latest report of the whereabouts of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per report, the petitioner is alive.

¶18

As per prosecution case, the complainant-Chaitanya Kumar lodged an F.I.R. No.99/2005 at Police Station Kotwali, Jhalawar for offence u/s.379 of I.P.C. alleging therein that on 04.03.2005 his motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-17-2-M-7905, which was parked at his residence inside the boundary wall, was stolen in the mid-night. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed & charges were framed against the petitioner for offence u/s.379 of I.P.C. The petitioner pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. He was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

After considering the facts & circumstances of the case & the material made available on record, ld. Trial Court has convicted & sentenced the petitioner for the aforesaid offences vide its judgment dt.02.08.2005. The ld. Appellate Court, vide its judgment dt.14.02.2006 has modified the sentence awarded to the petitioner as aforesaid.

¶20

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioner are that the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Court regarding conviction & sentence are patently illegal & perverse to the facts on record. The petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal. In the special circumstances where the matters are of extremely old pendency & unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits and, thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Lastly, counsel submits that he shall not assail the conviction of the present petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition may be partly

[2025:RJ-JP:5154]

[CRLR-199/2006]

(3 of 4)

allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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 ld. Trial Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶28

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 2005. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 20-years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time from 12.04.2005 to 26.05.2005 during trial and no other case is pending against the petitioner, 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 & Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial 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

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:5154]

¶30

[CRLR-199/2006]

¶31

upon the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

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 offence. The sentence, so awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶33

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶35

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶36

ASHOK/

Kanhiya Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhiya Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/O Shri Kailash Chand, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurav Kumar Meena S/O Vijendra Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Nawal Kishor Son of Late Shri Ram Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Meena Gupta W/O Shri Mohan Vijay B/C Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Meena Son of Dal Singh Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bacha @ Bachu Singh Vs State