Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1068 (RAJ)

Hariya @ Hareeram v. State

1996-09-19

S.C.MITAL

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Hariya @ Hareeram has preferred this revision from Central Jail, Jodhpur, against the judgment dated 3.2.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Under Sections 451 and 380 Read With 75 Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo 4 years R.I. & 1,000/- fine or to undergo 6 months R.I. Under Sections 380 Read With 75 Indian Penal Code and 6 months R.I. and 250 Rs. fine or to undergo 1 month R.I. Under section 451 Indian Penal Code Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the petitioner's age is about 17 to 18 years and he has an old mother. He is the only member to earn livelihood in his family. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is very excessive looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The allegation against the petitioner was the commission of theft of two Katalyas of silver and one gold fimny from the house of the complainant Krishna Ram PW 2. It is true that the petitioner has previous connection against him, but looking to his age and other circumstances, the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to already undergone. The petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for about 16 months from 3.5.1995 to 2.9.1996. The learned Amicus Curiae has not put any argument on the merits of the case. I have also perused the judgments of the Courts below. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts which has been based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. 3. I have considered about the quantum of sentence ordered to the petitioner. The petitioner is about 18 years of age. He has been previously convicted and benefit of probation of offenders Act, Under section 4 was extended to him. The learned Judicial Magistrate has opposed the sentence of 4 years on the ground that he has again committed this offence despite the benefit of probation extended to him for the first offence. It is true that the petitioner deserved higher punishment for the second offence Under section 75 Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate has opposed the sentence of 4 years on the ground that he has again committed this offence despite the benefit of probation extended to him for the first offence. It is true that the petitioner deserved higher punishment for the second offence Under section 75 Indian Penal Code. But at the same time, these facts and circumstances also cannot be ignored that the petitioner's age is only about 18 years i.e. below 21 years. Looking to the value of articles alleged to have been stolen and his age and that he has already suffered 6 months imprisonment, I am inclined to reduce the sentence which appears to be excessive. The fine imposed on the petitioner is also heavy. I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be sentenced to one year imprisonment on both the counts and the fine for the offence Under section 380 Read With 75 Indian Penal Code should also be reduced from one thousand to 500/- and in default of payment of fine six months R.I. to be reduced to three months R.I.Consequently this revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offences Under Section 380 Read With 75 & 451 Indian Penal Code by the two Courts below under the impugned judgments is hereby maintained. However, the sentence of 4 years passed against the petitioner Under section 380/75 Indian Penal Code is reduced to one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- is reduced to 500/- and imprisonment in default of fine is reduced 6 months to three months S.I. The sentence passed for the offence Under section 451 Indian Penal Code i.e. 6 months R.I. is converted to 6 months S.I. The fine of Rs. 250/- is hereby maintained. Imprisonment in default of fine one month R.I. is converted to one month S.I. Substantive sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently. The Probation officer Barmer is directed to supervise the conduct of the petitioner to take other practical and effective steps to provide guidance and to arrange as far as possible some employment to the petitioner so that the petitioner may be made to realise and prevent him from further committing such offences. The Probation officer Barmer is directed to supervise the conduct of the petitioner to take other practical and effective steps to provide guidance and to arrange as far as possible some employment to the petitioner so that the petitioner may be made to realise and prevent him from further committing such offences. The petitioner shall attend the office of the Probation Officer, Barmer on 15th of each month for two years.If there is default by the petitioner in attending the office of the Probation Officer, Barmer, a report may be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer for ensuring the compliance of this order. It is hereby directed to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur to produce the petitioner on 20.9.1996 at 1.30 p.m. in the Chamber of the Court to apprise him the order passed by this Court before his release from jail. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******