Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1332 (RAJ)

Mohaniyon @ Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-05

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 25.05.2004 passed by the Additional Session Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2004, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh and confirmed the Judgment and order dated 20.03.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 205/2003, by which the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner and co-accused for the offences under Sections 454 and 380, IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 454, IPC; and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 380, IPC with a further direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts of the case are that a written report Exhibit P-3 was submitted by complainant PW. 3 Bishandas with the Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar to the effect that on 010.2001, he and his wife had gone to office and the children had gone to school. In the noon, when his wife returned to the house, she saw one person standing on the gate of their house and on being asked, he had come for taking reading of the meter. When his wife entered the house, she found the lock of the main gate broken. She also found the inner and the almirah open and the goods were lying scattered. She immediately informed the complainant on telephone and on checking being made, they found three gold chains, two gold bangles, one ladies wrist watch, 15 big silver coins, 6 small coins, two nose-pins, and currency notes of Rs. 1000/-missing. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh for the offences under Sections 454 and 380, IPC. After trial, the tiral Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner and co-accused of the aforesaid offences. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. 1000/-missing. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh for the offences under Sections 454 and 380, IPC. After trial, the tiral Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner and co-accused of the aforesaid offences. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment s passed by the Courts below and the record of the case. 4. PW. 1 Roop Chand, who is father-in-law of complainant Bishan Das, is a witness to the recovery of the stolen articles on the information and at the instance of co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh. PW. 2 Smt. Usha has stated that in the afternoon, when she returned to her house, she saw the accused standing there and on being asked, the accused told that he had come for taking meter reading. On being asked who opened the door, the accused told that when no one opened the house despite ringing the bell, he entered into the house. She asked the accused to stop there. When she went inside the house, she found the locks broken and the goods scattered and further noticed that the ornaments etc. were missing. She raised cries about the theft committed, which attracted the neighbours and informed her husband on telephone. By that time, the accused had fled. She has given details of the stolen articles. Complainant PW . 3 Bishandas, in his statement, has corroborated the version given by his wife PW . 2 Smt. Usha and identified the stolen articles correctly which were recovered from the petitioner vide Exhibit P-6 and from co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh vide Exhibit P-1. PW. 4 Ranjeet Rai and PW. 15 Ashok Kumar are the witnesses to the recoveries of stolen articles and have proved Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-6 respectively. PW. 7 Jagish Chandra is the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation, recovered the stolen articles on the information furnished by co-accused Kamli @ Kamaljeet Singh and the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-12 and Exhibit P-14 and at their instance and proved the recovery memos Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-6. It is not the case of the accused-petitioner that the recovered articles belong to him. I have carefully gone through the Judgment s passed by the Courts below. It is not the case of the accused-petitioner that the recovered articles belong to him. I have carefully gone through the Judgment s passed by the Courts below. The learned trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused. The appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence , has up-held the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. There is concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. On perusal of the record and close scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that both the Courts below have correctly appreciated each and every part of material evidence and, therefore, I do not find any illegality, perversity or error in the Judgment s of the Courts below, which may require any interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction. .5. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC are limited and such an interference can be made in the following matters:- .(i) Where the decision is unjust and unfair. .(ii) The decision is grossly erroneous. .(iii) There is no compliance with the provisions of law. .(iv) The finding is not based on evidence. .(v) Material evidence of parties is not considered. .(vi) Judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 6. There is concurrent finding of the Courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. None of the aforesaid grounds exists in the instant case which may require interference in the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below. 7. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no previous conviction stands to the credit of the petitioner, the stolen articles have already been recovered and he has already undergone the imprisonment for one year and 12 days, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 8. The maximum sentence provided for the offence under Section 380, IPC is seven years imprisonment and fine and the offence under Section 454, IPC provides imprisonment for three years and fine. The Courts below have already taken a lenient view in awarding the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-for each of the offences. In my view, no further leniency is required by reducing the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. The Courts below have already taken a lenient view in awarding the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-for each of the offences. In my view, no further leniency is required by reducing the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of .