Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22161) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22161]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 661/2024
Vinod S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 10,
Ravatsar, Tehsil Ravatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Mertia
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 08/05/2025 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Nohar, District Hanumangarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.84/2017 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ravatsar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.116/2007 (CIS No.1690/2014) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 382 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years' RI along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' SI.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant submitted a written complaint at concerned Police Station to the effect that on (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:47:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:22161] (2 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024] 13.12.2006 at about 7.00 P.M. while returning home from his shop, he was carying a bag containing some rupees, keys and other personal articles. When he reached at Kesariya Mandir, Ward No.16 Ravatsar, two individuals came there and snatched his bag and fled away. On this report, the police registered the case against accused- petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 382 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-person was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2017 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.10.2022 and upheld the sentence of the petitioner awarded by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error in convicting the petitioner. He also submits that prosecution fails to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:47:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:22161] (3 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024] should be given in favour of accused-petitioner. It is further argued that without considering the fact that earlier, Police submitted negative final report and without protest petition the Police re-investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused. Therefore, the petitioner may be acquitted in the present case. He further submits that the accused petitioner has served one year, seven months and twenty-nine days of sentence, out of total sentence of three years, therefore, in alternate it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of three years' rigorous imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of one year, seven months and twenty-nine days, out of three years' of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind the bars for more than one year, seven months and twenty-nine days, it will be just and proper if the (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:47:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:22161] (4 of 4) [CRLR-661/2024] sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 382 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 382 IPC the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court is hereby waived. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is decided accordingly. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 78-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:47:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)