Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1554 (RAJ)

Prabhu Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-23

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 2. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 17.5.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (for short 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2011 whereby, the learned appellate upheld the conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur For offences under Sections 341, 394 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 21.5.2012. He, however, reduced the sentence awarded for offence under Section 394 I.P.C. from Five years S.I. and fine of Rs. 5000/- to three years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months S.I. 3. As per brief facts of the case, on 2.6.2009 complainant Nathu Lal submitted a complaint before the S.H.O Police Station Bichhiwada alleging that on 1.6.2009 he was going from udaipur to bhavnagar in his Truck No. RJ22/G-1854 alongwith Bheerav Lal Khalasi and when they reached Kherwada two persons sought lift and asked to drop them at Ratanpura. It is alleged that when they reached near Shihod Liquor shop, the Khalasi of the truck demanded fare, but the two persons started quarreling with Khalasi and took away Rs. 4000/- and his mobile. 4. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed challan against three persons for offences under Sections 341, 323, 394/34 I.P.C. 5. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 323 I.P.C. in alternative 323/34 I.P.C Section 394 in alternative 394/34, 338 and 304A who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of their case and exhibited 41 documents. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed trial. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.5.2012 convicted the accused-petitioner Prabhu Singh for offences under Sections 341, 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years S.I alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of fine to undergo six months S.I. 8. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.5.2012 convicted the accused-petitioner Prabhu Singh for offences under Sections 341, 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years S.I alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of fine to undergo six months S.I. 8. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, who by his judgment dated 17.5.2014 upheld the conviction for offences under Sections 394 and 341 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence for offence under Section 394 I.P.C. as Mentioned above. Hence, this revision petition. 9. At the threshold, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as on 17.2.2018, the petitioner had undergone the sentence of 2 years 6 month and 26 days and as of now he has undergone more than three years imprisonment including the period of remission and presently he is undergoing the sentence awarded to him in default of payment of fine i.e. sic months S.I since he did not pay the amount fine. It is submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the finding of both the Courts below but is prayed that the petitioner is facing trial since 2009 and he has already undergone sentence of more than three years S.I., therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner, in default of payment of fine may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the Trial Courts regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. Both the Courts below have recorded the finding that the accused-petitioner was guilty for offences under Sections 394 and 341 I.P.C., however, since the petitioner has already undergone more than three years of sentence and is presently undergoing the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine, therefore, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded by the Court below in default of payment of fine is reduced from six months to two months S.I. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 394 and 341 I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.5.2014 for offence under Section 394 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine is reduced from six months S.I. to two months S.I.