Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Singh vs State on 27 April, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 487 / 2015
Kalu Singh S/o Shri Anop Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of
village Kailash Nagar, P.S. Barloot, District Sirohi (Rajasthan)
(Presently lodged in Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh for Mr. Sambhoo
Singh.
For Respondent-State : Mr. R.K. Bohra, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 27/04/2017 Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 15 th of December 2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.6 Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court, while rejecting the appeal preferred by petitioner, affirmed verdict dated 14th of August 2012, rendered by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court). The learned trial Court, vide order dated 14th of August 2012, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 224 IPC and sentenced him two years simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and further, in default of payment of fine, to undergo ten days' simple imprisonment.
(2 of 5) [CRLR-487/2015] In brief, facts of the case are that on 24.07.2007, Constable Karparam lodged a written report at GRP Police Station Jodhpur stating therein that on 22.07.02007 he along with constable Chitarmal had taken accused Kalusingh Abu Road on a court date. The report further reveals that on 24.07.2007 when they were returning back in Suryanagari Express at about 1:30 AM, in between Karela and Rohit, accused-petitioner pushed him and jumped out of the running train. Whereupon to stop the train Chitarmal pulled chain and after its stopping they searched for the accused but failed. On the basis of said report, a case was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested. A charge-sheet for offence under Section 224 IPC was filed against the petitioner. The learned trial Court framed charge against accused-petitioner for the said offence and on denial he was put on trial.
In order to prove charge against accused-petitioner, prosecution examined seven witnesses. Besides that, ten documents were exhibited. Subsequently, statement of accused- petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, then proceeded to hear final arguments and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, by its verdict dated 14th of of August 2012, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as aforesaid. Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 14th of August 2012, the petitioner approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record. After (3 of 5) [CRLR-487/2015] scrutinizing the entire evidence and other materials available on record, the learned appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court, which entailed dismissal of the appeal. It is, in that background, petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he is not challenging indictment and conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offence but simply craving for leniency in the matter of punishment. Learned counsel would contend that looking to the criminal delinquency of the petitioner some reprive may be given in the quantum of punishment by reducing the same to the extent already undergone by him. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has already undergone the sentence for a period of almost 13 months, therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence. Lastly, learned counsel submits that in totality of circumstances and considering the fact that incident is almost a decade old, punishment awarded to the petitioner be altered by reducing the same to the period he has already undergone.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the proven criminal delinquency of the petitioner, no reprive in the quantum of punishment is desirable.
(4 of 5) [CRLR-487/2015] I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record.
The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in the instant revision petition, lies in narrow compass inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioner has abondoned challenge to the indictment and conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 224 IPC. Now, the only question which requires consideration is the quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court. There remains no quarrel that incident has occurred somewhere in 2007 and since then almost a decade has elapsed and furthermore petitioner has already served the sentence of almost 13 months, therefore, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence of 2 years awarded by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court to the extent of sentence already undergone by him, while maintaining the fine.
The revision petition thus deserves to be and is hereby accepted in part. While upholding the conviction of the petitioner, as recorded by trial court and affirmed by appellate court, the sentence of two years' imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 224 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(5 of 5) [CRLR-487/2015] The petitioner, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall deposit the fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which the State shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. a.asopa/-80