Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1646 (RAJ)

Rajesh @ Raju v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-09-02

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 7 days. 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 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.20/2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC as recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Original Case No.8405/2022, reduced the sentence for each offence from 3 years' rigorous imprisonment to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of 1 month's simple imprisonment and it was further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant Manoj Suthar submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Kotgate to the effect that he has an authorized service center of Maruti in the name of General Automobile. In the intervening night of 01.06.2022-02.06.2022, some unknown person burgled into the shop and stole an amount of Rs.50,000/- lying in the cash drawer and the said activity is recorded in the CCTV. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.168/2022 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 11 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 from defence side. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 11 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 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 12.04.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 10.05.2023 while affirming the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence. 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 granting the benefit of probation to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a young man aged 25 years. He has no criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. He is a poor person. This was one off incident and there is every possibility that the petitioner shall be reformed if he is given a chance. He has remained in custody for some days during trial and at present he is serving the sentence. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the petitioner may be given the benefit of probation. 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 some time and that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner. 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 : (1) The petitioner is a young boy aged 25 years; (2) The case involves the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, i.e. trespassing and theft from a shop. (3) It was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedents. (4) The learned appellate court has taken a lenient view and reduced the sentence for each count to two years' rigorous imprisonment. (5) There is no report regarding any untoward behaviour of the petitioner during the period of custody and during the period of bail. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that a reformative approach should be adopted in the present case. Thus, this court while taking lenient view towards petitioner, thinks it fit that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he should be be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No.8405/2022 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.20/2023 are affirmed. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No.8405/2022 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.20/2023 are affirmed. However, the order of sentence stands modified in the manner that the petitioner is ordered to be released from prison forthwith on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a period of two years with an undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon by the court, in case of default of any term and condition of the probation bond and to keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period of two years from the date of his entering into such bond. The bonds be furnished before the learned trial Court, i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of this order. The petitioner is on custody. He shall be released on probation forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, upon satisfying the aforementioned requirements. 11. The application seeking suspension of sentence and all other pending applications are disposed of.