Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalichand @ Galiya vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 March, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/008921]
• HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 218/2019
Dalichand @ Galiya S/o Kailash, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Khatik
, Niwasi Khatik Mohalla, Shahpura Police Thana Shahpura,
District Bhilwara, (Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramdev S/o Bheru Kahar, Khateek Mohalla, Shahpura Ps,
Shahpura, Dist Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 28/03/2023
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 23.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.66/2018 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 91/2018; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 457 and 380/511 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, he has been directed to further undergo six months of additional rigorous imprisonment. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:06:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/008921] (2 of 4) [CRLR-218/2019]
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2018, an FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant - Ramdev Kahar alleging therein that the accused abruptly scaled the complainant's house wall with the intent to commit theft and snatched the gold ornaments from the neck of complainant's daughter Mamta. When the family of the complainant woke up, the accused fled away by jumping over the wall. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against him under Sections 457 and 380/511 of IPC.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offences under Sections 457 and 380/511 of the IPC vide judgment dated 06.08.2018. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner do not wish to press the present revision petition in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submission on the point of sentence only. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:06:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/008921] (3 of 4) [CRLR-218/2019] the present petitioner. It was his first case and he is a young boy of 26 years. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgments. He is facing trial since the year 2018 and he has languished in jail for more than 3 years, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for around four years.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. As far as the question of suspension of sentence in concerned, it is true that the petitioner is behind the bars since last more than three years. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered almost four years incarceration out of the sentence of five years imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:06:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/008921] (4 of 4) [CRLR-218/2019] of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
7. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 91/2018 as well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.66/2018 dated 23.10.2018 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. He is on bail, he need not to surrender back.
8. The revision petition is allowed in part and the bail-bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby canceled.
9. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
10. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J 30-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:06:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)