Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harliya @ Harlal vs State on 19 April, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 596 / 2016
Harliya @ Harlal S/o Shri Kishan Lal @ Bheru, by caste Kalbeliya,
R/o Raghunathpura, at present Rawliya, P.S. Shambhupura,
District Chittorgarh.
(at present lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 19/04/2018 Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail judgment dated 15 th of September, 2015, rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. At the threshold, learned trial Court convicted accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 457 and 380/511 IPC and handed down following sentences:
Section 457 IPC: Three years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two month's simple imprisonment. Section 380/511IPC: Three years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
(2 of 4) [CRLR-596/2016] The learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 14.01.2016, while maintaining sentence for offence under Section 457 IPC, reduced the sentence for offence under Section 380/511 from three years' simple imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and also reduced fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-.
In brief, facts of the case are that complainant, Hiralal submitted a written report before Police Station Chanderiya alleging, inter aila, therein that the accused-petitioner along with two-three persons entered into Govt. Upper Primary School, Jeetawal with the intention to commit theft but due to awakening of villagers they fled away from the spot and on chasing the petitioner was caught. On the basis of above report, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 457, 380 and 511 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused persons for offence under Sections 457 and 380/511. Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons for the said offence and on denial they were put on trial.
Before learned trial Court, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited five documents. Subsequently, statements of accused-persons including the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the accused persons guilty of offence under Section 457 and 380/511 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.
(3 of 4) [CRLR-596/2016] On appeal, learned appellate Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence as aforementioned. 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 Sections 457 and 380/511 IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered sentence of two years and four months, out of the total sentence of three years, therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the period he has already undergone.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the Courts below have recorded 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 judgment of learned appellate Court as well as judgment of learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned the record of case.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-596/2016] There remains no dispute that the petitioner has already remained in custody for two years & four months out of total maximum sentence of three years awarded to him, and therefore, taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel persuaded to accede to the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner to the limited extent of reducing the sentence to the period already suffered by him.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part and upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner, sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining fine. The petitioner, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case subject to his depositing the amount of fine.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. a.asopa/-104