Disposed

Ritesh @ Bunti v. State

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2025CRLR/671/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction for motorcycle theft affirmed on merits after petitioner did not press revision against conviction. Considering 18-year-old case, age, prior incarceration and no previous conviction, High Court modified three years' simple imprisonment to the period already undergone and cancelled bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction maintained; accused need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled.

Ritesh @ Bunti Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:42458]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 671/2008

¶4

Ritesh @ Bunti S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, R/o House no. C-27A, Devi Nagar, Radha Vihar Colony, P.S. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

16/10/2025

¶13

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner - Ritesh @ Bunti against the Order dated 11.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fastrack) no. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2008 (Ritesh @ Bunti vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accusedpetitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate no. 15, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Regular Case no. 872/07 (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting him for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, has been dismissed.

[CRLR-671/2008]

[2025:RJ-JP:42458]

(2 of 6)

Facts of the case in short are that on 28.03.2007, complainant Harish Murjani (P.W. 1) has submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) to the effect that he does marketing work in Chandu Crockery Maniharon Ki Rasta, Jaipur and for that purpose, his owner Girdharilal A Sangtani gave him a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no. R.J. 14- SG- 9874 for marketing. On 26.03.2007 around 7.00 P.M., he went to Kanji Sweets, Opposite Polo Victory, Station road, Jaipur to collect payment. He parked the said motor cycle in front of Kanji Sweets and went inside the shop. Around 7:30 PM, when he came back, the said motor cycle could not be found there. He searched the motor cycle in surrounding area but not succeeded. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.41/07 was registered at Police Station Sindhi Camp, District Jaipur for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. The trial court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2007, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Order dated 11.06.2008 dismissing the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:42458]

[CRLR-671/2008]

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2007 i.e. around 18 years ago; accused-petitioner was 33 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 51 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 18 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of more than two months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kalyan vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3157) and the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1286/2018) decided on 01.03.2019 and in Sikander urf Mitthu Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 170/2013) decided on 13.05.2013.

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:42458]

[CRLR-671/2008]

Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶29

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case.

¶30

Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment/order passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment/order passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶31

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgment and order impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue as also the fact that accused-petitioner, who was only 33 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 18 years and he has remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the

¶32

(5 of 6) [CRLR-671/2008]

¶33

[2025:RJ-JP:42458]

¶34

opinion that at this stage, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶35

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶36

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶37

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

¶38

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶39

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

¶40

Consequently, the judgment dated 11.06.2008 and order dated 30.11.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accusedpetitioner by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. is modified to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled.

¶41