Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh vs State on 29 May, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 612 / 2016
Govind Singh S/o Parbat Singh @ Pahar Singh, by caste Rajput,
resident of Street No.6, Tankariya, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil & District
Sirohi (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Sarvan Saini.
For Respondent-State: Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 29/05/2017 Matter comes up on an application for preponement of date of hearing.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.
Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail judgment dated 9 th of November 2012, rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirohi (for short, 'learned trial Court'), before Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi (Rajasthan) (for (2 of 5) [CRLR-612/2016] short, 'learned appellate Court'), petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while affirming the judgment of learned trial Court, vide judgment 16.05.2016 dismissed the appeal.
In brief, facts of the case are that on 10.07.2007, complainant, Smt. Lata lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) with Police Station Sirohi stating therein that at about 9:00 PM when she along with Hema Kumari, Dimple Ben, and others was going to Chipaoli and reached near the shop of Jeetu Nagori, accused petitioner accompanied by one came there and snatched gold chain, which she was wearing and thereafter they fled away. On the basis of above report, an FIR No.167/2007 was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for offence under Section 392 IPC and against Prakash Kumar under Section 392/34 IPC. Learned trial Court framed charge against accused persons for the aforesaid offence and on denial put them on trial.
(3 of 5) [CRLR-612/2016] Before learned trial Court, prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited ten documents. Subsequently, statements of accused-persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid while acquitting other accused Prakash Kumar. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. It is in that background, petitioner has approached this Court.
At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below to the extent petitioner is held guilty for offence under Section 394 IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused- petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered sentence of one year and one month out of the total sentence of two years, therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the period he has already undergone. For craving indulgence of the Court, learned counsel has urged that almost a decade has elapsed since occurrence of incident and furthermore there is no evidence of any such offence earlier committed by the petitioner much less his conviction.
(4 of 5) [CRLR-612/2016] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned the record of case.
There remains no quarrel that learned trial Court, on cumulative reading of statements of the prosecution witnesses convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and the verdict of learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. However, at this stage, challenge to indictment and conviction of the petitioner being abondoned, matter requires consideration for reducing sentence in the backdrop of peculiar facts of the case.
The petitioner has already suffered sentence of one year and one month out of the total sentence of two years, and therefore, taking into account the entire fact scenario coupled with the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel impressed to take lenient view in the matter of punishment. Therefore, while acceding to the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the sentence handed down to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court (5 of 5) [CRLR-612/2016] merits reduction to the extent he has already undergone. However, fine imposed by both the Courts below is maintained.
Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under Section 392 IPC sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period he has already undergone without interfering with punishment of fine.
The petitioner, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine Rs.2,000/- within a period of one month from today, failing which the State shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. a.asopa/-59