Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 572 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-16

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Madan Lal, s/o Gyana Ram, b/c Khati, r/o village Jodi Patta Satyu, Tehsil and District Churu, against the judgment and order dated 29.09.1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Criminal Appeal No.74/1993 and the judgment passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu dated 02.09.1993 in Cr. Case No.08/1989, convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner by the appellate court for the offence under section 454 Indian Penal Code to six months' Rigorous Imprisonment and further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Dudhwa Khara on 01.11.1988 by complainant Mohan Ram, with regard to theft of ornaments ('Payjeb' etc.) from his house. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioner in the trial court and after completion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner under Section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment on each count. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order, before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, who vide his order dated 29.09.1994, reduced the sentence as indicated above. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence against the petitioner under Section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be proved, on the basis of the evidence available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and further the learned trial court and the first appellate court did not consider the evidence of the defence witnesses, DW/1 Vijendra Singh and DW/2 Rameshwar Lal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra, vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. I have perused the statement of the witnesses and the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court. 7. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra, vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. I have perused the statement of the witnesses and the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court. 7. The First Information Report was lodged by Mohan Ram on 01.11.1988 and the incident took place on 23.10.1988 and the recovery was made in pursuance to the information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of the stolen articles and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW/6 Praveen Sunda, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Dudhwa Khara, who recovered the stolen articles on 06.12.1988, just after the arrest of the accused petitioner on 05.12.1988. 8. I have also perused the statement of other witnesses. There are no serious contradictions about the fact of the theft and the fact of the recovery of the stolen articles. Further, the stolen articles were identified by the complainant in the court. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of the material available on record, the order of conviction passed against the petitioner under Section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code by the trial court and further modified by the learned appellate court is affirmed. 10. Coming to the point of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused was arrested on 05-12.1988 and he was convicted by the appellate court on 29.09.1994 and he was released on bail on 27.10.1994. Thus, he remained for about one month in judicial custody and the offence relates to the year 1988. Therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused may be sentenced to the period already undergone, along with the fine, as imposed by the learned appellate court. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the Court.I have perused the record. 12. This was the first offence of the petitioner. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and specially to the fact that the offence was committed In the year 1988 and after a lapse of 23 years, no useful purpose will be served to send the accused again behind the bars. Therefore, the accused petitioner Madan Lal is sentenced 'for the offence under Section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code, to the period of sentence already undergone. Therefore, the accused petitioner Madan Lal is sentenced 'for the offence under Section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code, to the period of sentence already undergone. However, the fine and the other sentence imposed by the learned appellate court and the sentence in default of payment of fine, is maintained. 13. Thus, the revision petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code, the punishment awarded by the learned appellate court is modified as indicated above.Revision allowed partly. *******