Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1099 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-11

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 15.02.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court upheld the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, Distt. Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') dated 04.11.2015 whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under:- Offence Punishment 394 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone one month imprisonment 342 IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment 336 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 03.09.2013, complainant Giriraj filed a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Karoi to the effect that when he and his family were sleeping in the farm, in the night at about 12:30 A.M., three persons entered the farm and caught hold of him and his wife and started beating. It was alleged that the persons beaten him and his family and took away valuables from the house. 3. On this report, FIR No. 74/2013 was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Section 394, 342, 336 IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner alongwith two other accused for offence under Section 394, 342, 336 IPC. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the accused petitioner who denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 5. After considering the material available on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for offence as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.11.2015, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2018. 7. 5. After considering the material available on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for offence as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.11.2015, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2018. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner is behind the bars for last four and half years and thus he has undergone substantial period of his maximum sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is further prayed that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and the fine imposed upon the petitioner is also excessive, therefore, the same may also be waived. 8. 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. 9. I have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report obtained from the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur according to which, as on 20.02.2019, the petitioner has so far undergone 04 years, 05 months and 03 days of imprisonment out of total sentence of five years, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 04 years and 07 months now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 394 IPC is reduced from 05 years to 04 years 07 months rigorous imprisonment. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section 394, 342 and 336 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for offence under Section 394 IPC is hereby reduced from 05 years rigorous imprisonment to 04 years and 07 months rigorous imprisonment and the fine imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section 394, 342 and 336 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for offence under Section 394 IPC is hereby reduced from 05 years rigorous imprisonment to 04 years and 07 months rigorous imprisonment and the fine imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- for the said offence is also waived. 11. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.