Disposed¶39

Lohdey v. State

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2026CRLR/228/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLR 228/2008; Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; BHUWAN GOYAL, J.; order dated 13/01/2026; Section 380 IPC; theft of idol of goddess Parvati; P.S. Karanpur; Karauli; revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; 145 days custody; protracted trial around 25 years; no previous conviction; sole bread earner; Alister Anthony Pareira (2012) 2 SCC 648; Haripada Das (1998) 9 SCC 678; Gatiya @ Kalia (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/1996); Dhanraj (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1412/2018); bail bonds cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 380 IPC affirmed; sentence modified to the period already undergone; accused-petitioner on bail need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled; copy of order with records to be sent to the trial court forthwith.

Lohdey Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition warrants interference with the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 380 IPC recorded by the courts below. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 380 IPC as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained; the Court does not wish to interfere with the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, the challenge to conviction not having been pressed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

At this stage no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused-petitioner to jail, considering that he was only 28 years old at the time of the incident, has suffered the agony of a protracted trial spanning around 25 years, has remained incarcerated for some time after the judgment, and no evidence of previous conviction is on record.

¶30

Key takeaways

The quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 380 IPC awarded by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court is modified to the period already undergone by the accused-petitioner; he is on bail, need not surrender, and his bail bonds are cancelled.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against concurrent conviction under Section 380 IPC (theft of idol of goddess Parvati; incident of 2001; F.I.R. No. 09/2003, P.S. Karanpur; trial court judgment dated 03.10.2006, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karauli, sentencing to two years' imprisonment with Rs. 2,000 fine; appeal dismissed 25.02.2008 by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fastrack) no. 2, Karauli). Challenge to conviction not pressed and finding of guilt maintained. On sentence, the quantum of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (145 days in police and judicial custody), considering the protracted trial of around 25 years, the petitioner's age (28 at the incident, around 53 at decision), his being the sole bread earner from a poor strata of society, and absence of previous conviction; the Court relied on Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B., (1998) 9 SCC 678, and counsel referred to coordinate-bench decisions in Gatiya @ Kalia & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/1996) and Dhanraj (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1412/2018). Bail bonds cancelled; revision petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1395]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 228/2008

¶4

Lohdey S/o Natthu, R/o Village Parita, Police Station, Kudgaon District Karauli (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.	Surabhi Aggarwal
	Mr.	Rahul Sharma
	Ms.	Chanchal
	Mr.	Utkarsh Goyal
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.	Manju Dave, Addl. G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

¶11

13/01/2026

¶12

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Lohdey against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fastrack) no. 2, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 137/07 (Lohdey vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accusedpetitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 464/2003 (State of Rajasthan vs. Lohdey) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' imprisonment, has been affirmed.

[2026:RJ-JP:1395]

[CRLR-228/2008]

(2 of 5)

Facts of the case in short are that on 24.03.2003, complainant Ramesh Chand Sharma (P.W. 5) has submitted a report to SHO, Police Station, Karanpur to the effect that there is a temple of goddess Parvati Devi on Parvati Ki Dangaria in Revenue village in which idol of goddess Parvati was installed, but about two years ago, the said idol was stolen by unknown thief, which has not yet been be recovered. On that basis, F.I.R. No. 09/2003 was registered at Police Station, Karanpur for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The trial court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 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 380 I.P.C. as mentioned above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.10.2006, accusedpetitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the judgment and order dated 25.02.2008 dismissing the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

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.

[2026:RJ-JP:1395]

[CRLR-228/2008]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2001 i.e. around 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 28 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 53 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 25 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 145 days 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.

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Gatiya @ Kalia & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/1996) decided on 18.05.2017 and Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1412/2018) decided on 17.01.2019 .

¶24

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.

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1395]

[CRLR-228/2008]

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 28 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 25 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 opinion that at this stage, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶31

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:-

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1395]

[CRLR-228/2008]

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶36

“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.”

¶37

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶38

“…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…”

¶39

Consequently, the judgment dated 25.02.2008 and order dated 03.10.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court for the offence under Section 380 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 accusedpetitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled.

¶40

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶42

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶43

Ritu /89

Lohdey v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lohdey 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

Manoj Kumar Vs State

Mahendra Kumar Meena S/O Radheshyam Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Jasveer Singh @ Viri S/O Budhprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Sh. Nand Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Durgaprasad S/O Late Rameshwarlal, Vs State of Rajasthan

V S/O Mahaveer Vs State of Rajasthan