Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1571 (RAJ)

Vikas @ Vickey v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-19

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.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.721/2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC, reduced the sentence for the said offence from simple imprisonment of 3 years to simple imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months and also reduced the fine amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The sentence for default in payment of fine was also reduced to 1 months' simple imprisonment from 3 months' simple imprisonment. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 31.01.2016, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Nohar received a telephonic information that a boy has brought a motorcycle to the house of Mohar Singh, resident of Maliya and is intending to sell it at cheap rate, as such, it could be a stolen vehicle. In pursuance of the above information, the SHO along with other police personnel reached to the house of Mohar Singh and found a young boy wandering there, who tried to hide on seeing the police party. On being caught, he told his name to be Vikar Kumar @ Vicky and that the Platina motorcycle lying there had been stolen by his friend Monti from Elanabad and that he had brought the same there with an intention to sell. The police seized the motorcycle and on basis of the aforesaid seizure, registered FIR No.72/2016 for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the above offence. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. 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 offence under Section 411 of the IPC vide judgment dated 29.06.2022. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 27.06.2023. 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 2016. The petitioner was a young boy aged around 19 years at the time of the incident. He is a poor person. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 7 years. He remained in custody for some time during trial and now he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. 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 it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time during trial and he is presently in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. 6. 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 2016. 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 7 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He was a young boy aged 19 years at the time of the incident. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for some time 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 criminal antecedents, 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 is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 8. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.721/2016 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2023 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 411 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. Stay application and pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.