Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1561 (RAJ)

Keshar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-18

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ashpur in Criminal Regular Case No.351/2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offences as under:- Sr.No. Punishment Sections 1. Two years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 380 of IPC. 2. Two years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 454 of IPC. 2. A challenge has also been made to the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2018 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction has been dismissed on the point of conviction, however, the sentences passed under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC have been reduced from two years to three months. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the FIR Came to be lodged at the behest of Manohar Singh (P.W.-1) on 27.10.2007 alleging inter alia regarding theft committed in his house by some unknown person. During the investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested and alleged property was recovered from him and where after, he was charge sheeted. 4. During the course of the trial, as many as 10 witnesses were produced and certain documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the prosecution and where after, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he abstained from the allegation and claimed innocence. 5. Where after, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appeal filed against it, has also been dismissed. Both the judgments are under assail before this Court. 6. After arguing the matter to some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and have entered into a compromise which has been submitted during the proceedings of appeal and the fact is reflecting from the Para No.14 of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press on the point of conviction but seeks benevolence of this Court towards the point of sentence only. 7. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press on the point of conviction but seeks benevolence of this Court towards the point of sentence only. 7. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have also gone through the niceties of the matter and found nothing which may persuade this Court to interfere in the finding of guilt and therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal is affirmed. 8. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident took place in the year 2007. It took ten years to culminate the trial and two more years in decision of the appeal where after this revision petition was filed in the year 2019 and it is pending since last four years. The petitioner has faced the rigour of trial for good 16 years. He is an indigent person. The parties are the resident of the same vicinity. They have entered into compromise and now, the complainant does not wish to prosecute the accused. As it is emanating from the record that it is the first offence of the petitioner. His criminal antecedents are not so as to disentitle him to be given the benefit of probation. He belongs to an indigent family and is a resident of remote village in a tribal area. These are the mitigating circumstances which can be considered for the purpose of reduction of sentence. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The fact of compromise is very much mentioned in the judgment of appeal. After going through the judgment and hearing the parties, I am of this considered view that sending the petitioner behind the bars would not be justifiable and in the given circumstances, the benefit of probation should be extended to him so that he can reaffirm himself. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed in part and the judgment of conviction is maintained. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed in part and the judgment of conviction is maintained. The judgment of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and Court of Appeal are hereby set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner shall remain on probation for a period of one year upon execution of a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. He shall maintain peace and will not repeat the offences. If during the probation period, he found indulged in any like activity, he shall be sent to serve the remaining part of the sentences. 10. Accordingly, the instant revision petition and all other pending applications are also disposed of. 11. The record of the Court below be sent back.