Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdev Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16025) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 537/2006
Ramdev Singh S/o Shri Bholiramji, Aged About 60 years, By
Caste Jaat, Resident of Village Papda, Police Station-
Udaipurwati, District- Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
(Lodged in District Jail Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 26/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23.06.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No.41/2006 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Rajsamand, by which the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment dated 11.11.2003 passed in Regular Cr. Case No.272/2001 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Sec.407 IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.200/- 2 months' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Prakash Chand, lodged a written report at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 407 of IPC. On the said report, an FIR was registered and (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 11:12:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16025] (2 of 3) [CRLR-537/2006] after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 407 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, one witness was examined.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.06.2006. Hence, this revision petition.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1993 and out of total sentence of 2 years' S.I., the accused petitioner has already served about one month of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 11:12:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16025] (3 of 3) [CRLR-537/2006] interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1993 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about one month in custody out of two 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 the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 407 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections 407 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 24-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 11:12:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)