Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1535 (RAJ)

Banshi @ Banshiya v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-14

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing these two Criminal Revision Petitions challenge has been made to the judgement dated 10.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pratapgarh in Criminal appeal No.39/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.490/1998; whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under :- S. No. Name of the petitioner Offence for which conviced Sentence, fine and default sentence 1. Banshi @ Banshiya Section 457 of the IPC One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment Section 380 of the IPC Six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment Section 380 of the IPC Six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment 2. Shyam Lal Section 411 of the IPC Three months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision petitions are that on 27.10.1998 at 06.20 p.m. complainant Praveen Pareek submitted a report to the SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh to the effect that in the night of 05.10.1998, some unknown persons broke into his shop named Pareek Sales Corporation situated at M.G. Road, in front of Samta Talkies and stole 3 bundles of wire, Motor Bush, 3 silver coins and Rs.400/- cash. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.378/1998 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against petitioners. After conducting a full-fledged trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners in the manner stated above vide judgement dated 03.07.2001. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 10.07.2002 while affirming the conviction and maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition is preferred by them. 3. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 10.07.2002 while affirming the conviction and maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition is preferred by them. 3. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confine his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1998. The petitioners were 20 and 54 years of age at that time. Presently, they are aged 45 and 79 years respectively. The petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted trial for long 25 years. Petitioner Banshi has remained in custody for more than 6 months, while petitioner Shyam Lal has also remained in custody for few days. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the present petitioners to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel pray that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and the case is pending since long. 5. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgement of conviction. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction is maintained. 6. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1998. The petitioners were aged 20 years and 54 years respectively at that time. Now they have turned 45 and 79 respectively. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. Now they have turned 45 and 79 respectively. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. Petitioner Banshi has served more than half of the maximum sentence awarded to him. Petitioner Shyam Lal, who is in ripe age, has also remained incarcerated for some days. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioners deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction dated 03.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.490/1998 as well as the judgement in appeal dated 10.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.39/2002 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the petitioners for their respective offences is modified to the extent that for each count, the sentence undergone by the petitioners till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 8. The revision petitions are allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 9. Record be sent back.