Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1549 (RAJ)

Vinod Mali v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-16

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal appeal No.22/2023, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.601/2009; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and for each count he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of 1 month's simple imprisonment. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 15.09.2009, complainant Pankaj Soni submitted a written report at the Police Station Mahamandir to the effect that his jewelry shop is situated behind Bhadwasiya School, in front of cold storage, at RTO Road. In the night of 14.09.2009 between 01.00 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. someone broke the shutter of his shop, broke the glass and stole gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.2,97,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.340/2009 was registered at the Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced from defence side. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 10.01.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 27.06.2023 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 27.06.2023 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines 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 2009. The offences involved are trespassing and theft. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 14 years. The petitioner remained in custody for around 5 months during trial and presently he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. The petitioner is a poor person and the only bread-earner of his family. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time during trial and presently he is in judicial custody. 6. 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 judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 7. 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 2009 and involves the offences of trespassing and theft. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 14 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for around 5 months during trial and presently he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 14 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for around 5 months during trial and presently he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves 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 petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that he 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 the petitioner for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.601/2009 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.22/2023 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 457 and 380 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioner has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if any, are disposed of.