Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1645 (RAJ)

Vikas Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-02

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 349 days. The petitioner is in custody. The revision petition has been filed by a counsel appointed by the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. For the grounds and reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The revision petition be treated to be filed within limitation. 2. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.88/2018, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Original Case No.687/2017, whereby he was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and for each count, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months. 3. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant Shatrughn Sankhi submitted a report at the Police Station Nohar to the effect that he is having a mobile shop in the Sindhi Bazar, Nohar. In the intervening night of 04.04.2017-05.04.2017, some unknown person broke the locks of his shop and stole the mobile phones listed in the report. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.174/2017 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. 4. 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 7 witnesses and exhibited 21 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. One document was exhibited from defence side. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 21 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. One document was exhibited 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 05.07.2018. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 10.06.2022 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 5. 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 2017. The offences involved are trespassing and theft. The petitioner was a young boy aged 19 years at the time of the incident. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial for 6 years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is simple imprisonment of 3 years. He has already remained in custody for a period of more than 2 years and 1 month. He is a poor person. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. 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 significant time. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. 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 2017 and involves the offences of house 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 6 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The sentence awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple imprisonment for each count. The petitioner has remained incarcerated for more than 2 years and 1 month till date and presently he is in custody. He is a poor person. 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, period of incarceration, 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 sentences imposed upon the petitioner for each count are reduced to the one already undergone by him. 9. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Original Case No.687/2017 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.88/2018 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 custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 10. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, including the suspension of sentence application, are disposed of.