Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2160 (RAJ)

Rata Gameti v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-18

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the convict Rata Gameti S/o Nathu Gameti, resident of village Taramela (Padrada),District Udaipur against the judgment dated 18.6.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge NO.4, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No.70/2013 (174/11) whereby the learned Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and modified the judgment dated 13.6.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gogunda, District Udaipur in Cr. Case No.527/2005 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted for the charge under Section 323/34 IPC but confirmed the finding and punishment of the learned trial court for offence under Section 394 IPC and punishment of 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- 2. At the threshold the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging the finding of conviction for offence under Section 395 IPC, however, it is submitted that FIR was registered on 12.12.2005 at Police Station Sayara in which an allegation was levelled by the complainant Pema to the effect that on 11.11.2005 when he was going to Karwad Forest for collecting Chana at that time, two persons came there and started beatings with him and snatched his gold earrings and Rs. 10/- and ran way from there. In the FIR it is stated that both the persons were present accused Rata and Bhoma who belongs to his own village. During the pendency of appeal, Bhoma died, therefore, appeal of Bhoma was ordered to be abated vide order dated 9.5.2014 and in appeal filed by the petitioner he was acquitted from the charge under Section 323/34 but conviction for offence under Section 394 IPC was maintained. 3. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner in the medical report there are only 4 simple injuries out of which one is burse and 3 are abrasions and there is no specific allegation for inflicting those injuries by the petitioner and petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since 2005, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 3 years to already undergone. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 18.6.2014, the petitioner is in judicial custody and he has served more than 6 months sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 394 IPC by the learned trial court and confirmed by the Addl. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 18.6.2014, the petitioner is in judicial custody and he has served more than 6 months sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 394 IPC by the learned trial court and confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur may be reduced to already undergone. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relaxation because he has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 394 IPC for which sufficient evidence is led by the prosecution, upon which the punishment is awarded to the petitioner, therefore, the instant revision petition may be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that petitioner belongs to tribal area and allegations were leveled against 2 persons, petitioner and Bhoma for extortion of gold earrings and Rs. 10/- and the gold earnings have already been recovered and out of two, one accused Bhoma died and, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for snatching the earrings and petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since 2005, therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 394 IPC from 3 years to already undergone. The petitioner is behind the bars since 18.6.2014 and he has suffered more than 6 months of sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to already undergone, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1000/-. Consequently, the petitioner may be released on depositing the amount of fine if he is not required in any other case.Accordingly, this Cr. misc. petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******