Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1785 (RAJ)

Puraniya v. State of Rajasthan

2004-12-14

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 06.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh (for short, “the appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2004, by which the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 380, IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) and altered the conviction of the accused-petitioner from Section 457 to Section 451, IPC and sentenced him to the imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment . Hence, this revision petition. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that complainant Smt. Sosar Bai, on 011.2001, lodged an FIR with the Police Stattion, Bhensroadgarh to the effect that on 27.06.2001, while she was sleeping out-side her house in a cote (Bada) the accused-petitioner came there and snatched her ear-ring and ran away. On this report, the police registered the case and after investigation, filed a challan under Sections 457 and 380, IPC against the accused-petitioner before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as stated above. However, the Appellate Court acquitted the accused-petitioner of the offence under Section 380, IPC and altered the conviction from Sections 457 to 451, IPC and sentenced the accused-petitioner for simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order impugned and the record of the case. 4. During course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has given up his challenge to the order of conviction and confined his arguments limited to the question of sentence and prayed that looking to the unblemished antecedents and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment for about five months, his sentence may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone during trial and thereafter during the appeal and the revision 5. Having considered the fact that the accused-appellant has already under the imprisonment for about five months during trial and pendency of the appeal and revision, there is no adverse antecedent against the petitioner and it is his first offence, I consider it just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner from six months simple imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial and pendency of the appeal and the revision. The sentence of fine awarded by the appellate Court is, however, maintained. 6. Consequently, the revision petition stands partly allowed with the aforesaid direction. Since, the revision petition itself has been decided, the bail application also stands disposed of .