Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

Chandra Prakash @ Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2009-05-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer (for short "the trial Court") passed in Sessions Case No. 9/2001 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under :U/s. 394 IPC : 2. Seven years RI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.U/s 397 IPC : 3. Seven years RI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 4. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.5.1999 at about 11.30 PM, complainant Jawahar submitted a written report to the SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Ajmer when the SHO reached at the place of incident stating therein that he is having shop in the style as Prince Jewellers near Veternary Hospital, Naya Bazar, Ajmer. At 9.30 PM after downing the shutter he was putting the articles in the shop inside. Servants Alisher and Govind were working near the gate. Then a young aged about 25 years came and asked that he had to purchase a ring upon which the complainant told him that the shop has been closed and asked him to come in the morning. Then the said boy told that he has to go attend marriage at 5:00 AM. Upon this is complainant asked the servants to come inside the shop and they put the rings from the show case in a tray. Certain other facts were also mentioned in the written report. 6. On the basis of this written report, the police registered an FIR No. 101/1999 for the offence under Section 394 IPC. 7. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person for the offence under Sections 395, 412, 216 and 120B IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer from where the case was committed for Sessions trial. 8. The trial court after hearing framed charges against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 9. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer from where the case was committed for Sessions trial. 8. The trial court after hearing framed charges against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 9. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 29 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 10. Thereafter, the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any evidence. 11. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 5.3.2008. 12. The accused appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.2008 has preferred instant criminal appeal before this Court. 13. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material including record of the case. 14. Without going into merits of the case Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, counsel for the accused appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the Judgment of the trial Court but his simple request before the Court is that the accused appellant be released for the period already undergone by him, as he is in judicial lock up for the last 5 years 5 months and 15 days, out of total 7 years imprisonment and if not then the accused appellant be given the benefit of remission under Section 432 Cr.PC. in accordance with law keeping. 15. Mr. Pradeep Shreemal, Public Prosecutor for the State controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence after considering all the material made available to it. Thus, impugned judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment. 16. The submission of the counsel regarding releasing the accused appellant for the period already undergone by him, does not seem to be genuine and thus rejected. So far as the benefit of remission to the accused appellant is concerned, the State Government can consider the same keeping in view his antecedents in jail and looking to his future. 17. 16. The submission of the counsel regarding releasing the accused appellant for the period already undergone by him, does not seem to be genuine and thus rejected. So far as the benefit of remission to the accused appellant is concerned, the State Government can consider the same keeping in view his antecedents in jail and looking to his future. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 9/2001, is maintained but at the same time, I direct the State Government / Jail Authorities to give the accused appellant the benefit of remission under Section 432 Cr.PC. in accordance with law, keeping in view his antecedents in Jail and looking to his future. 18. Rest of judgment of the trial Court is maintained.Appeal Dismissed Subject To Above Direction. *******