Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1739 (RAJ)

Shahrukh Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-12

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 409 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred seeking condonation of delay. For the grounds and reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The same be treated to be filed within limitation. 2. An application has been filed seeking correction in the order dated 28.07.2023, wherein indavertently name of the trial court has been mentioned as "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara" instead of "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara". The correction sought for is essential, therefore, it is ordered that the name of the trial court mentioned in para 4 of the order dated 28.07.2023 shall be read as "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara" instead of "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara". 3. Looking to the nature of offence and other facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition itself is being heard and decided today itself. 4. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.64/2016, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Original Case No.440/2014, whereby he was convicted for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and for each count, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 days. 5. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.08.2014, complainant Anil S/o Ramesh Chandra Joshi submitted a report at the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara to the effect that on that day at 09.00 a.m. he went alongwith Superintending Engineer to inspect a site. When he returned back at 11.30 a.m., he opened the lock of the main gate of the house and found that the same was locked from inside. The main gate was got opened in the presence of Mr. When he returned back at 11.30 a.m., he opened the lock of the main gate of the house and found that the same was locked from inside. The main gate was got opened in the presence of Mr. Shyam Lal Gurjar, SI and it was noticed that the household articles had been threshed about and cash, ornaments and other articles had been stolen. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.375/2014 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC. 6. 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 10 witnesses and exhibited 13 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 454 and 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.08.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 08.09.2021 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 7. 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 2014. The offences involved are trespassing and theft. The petitioner was a young man aged 19-20 years at that time. He is an illiterate and poor labourer belonging to rural background. His family is dependent upon him. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial for 9 years. He has remained in custody for some time during trial and at present he is in judicial custody. 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. 8. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial for 9 years. He has remained in custody for some time during trial and at present he is in judicial custody. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 2014 and involves the offences of trespassing and theft. The sentence awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple imprisonment for each count. The petitioner, who is a poor illiterate person, has remained incarcerated for some time during trial and at present he is in judicial custody after decision of appeal. He was a young boy aged 19-20 years at the time of the incident. 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 9 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. 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. 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. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Original Case No.440/2014 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.64/2016 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 454 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. 12. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.