Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1916 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-08

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
ORDER : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2011 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 23.03.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Revdar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 373/2009 whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Sections 420 & 508 IPC and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Fine In default Sec. 420 IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 month S.I. Sec. 508 IPC 1 year R.I. - - 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi by 22 villagers inter-alia alleging therein that about 2-3 months back, the accused-petitioners came to their village and told them that if they invest money, they can double the money in one month and triple in two months. The accused-petitioners also told that they are blessed by divine powers and with their divine powers after doing 'Anusthan' they can increase the money by four times, out of which one fourth share would be that of the accused-petitioners and remaining three fourth share would be of the person depositing the money. The accused-petitioners also threatened the complainants that if they don't deposit the money, 'Devi Maa' curse will destroy their family. Due to the fear of curse of 'Devi Maa', the complainants deposited a total sum of Rs. 12,12,000/- with the accused-petitioners. After some time, when the complainants demanded their money, then the accused-petitioners threatened them of dire consequences and fled from the village. 4. On this complaint, the police registered the case against the accused-petitioners and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 508 & 120B IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioners. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 6. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioners. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.03.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420 & 508 IPC as mentioned earlier. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2011. Hence this revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioners. 8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2009 and the accused-petitioners were arrested on 09.07.2009 and they were in judicial custody during whole trial and released only on 30.06.2011, thus they have so far suffered a sentence of about one year eleven months out of total sentence of three years for offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel further submits that for offence under Section 508 IPC, both the petitioners have already served the sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 10. Since the petitioners' counsel does not challenge the petitioners' conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the accused-petitioners as recorded by the learned courts below for the offence under Sections 420 & 508 IPC is maintained. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. 12. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. 12. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2009 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of one year and eleven months incarceration out of the total three years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 420 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the amount of fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. 13. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Salim Vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Revision No. 571/2018 decided on 01.06.2018, while maintaining the conviction for offence under Section 420 IPC, reduced the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone by him. The coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment has held as under: "The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in this revision petition, lies in narrow compass inasmuch as authorized representative of the petitioner has abandoned challenge to his indictment and conviction for offences under Sections 420/120B and 471 IPC. Now, the only question which requires consideration is the quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court in the light of sentence so far suffered by him out of the maximum sentence awarded. In my considered opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner has already suffered major part of substantive sentence awarded to him, the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to one and half years for both the offences, which the petitioner had already undergone and remaining 43 days' sentence suffered by him for default of payment of fine qua offence under Section 420/120-B IPC. However, sentence awarded to the petitioner for default of payment of fine vis-à-vis offence under Section 471 IPC is waived looking to the penury condition of the petitioner." 14. However, sentence awarded to the petitioner for default of payment of fine vis-à-vis offence under Section 471 IPC is waived looking to the penury condition of the petitioner." 14. Similarly this Court in the case of Roop Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Revision No. 65/2011, decided on 28.08.2018, while maintaining the conviction for offence under Section 420 IPC, reduced the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him i.e. five and half months out of two years rigorous imprisonment. 15. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 420 & 508 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for offence under Section 420 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. Two month's time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The sentence for offence under Section 508 IPC has already been served by the accused-petitioners. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 16. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.