Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2065 (RAJ)

Naru Lal @ Nariya v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-11-03

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.42/2011, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Original Case No.216/2004, 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.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant Mohanlal Jat, resident of Amarpur submitted a written report at the Police Station Kheroda on 30.07.2004 to the effect that on that day at 10 a.m., he went to his well after locking his room and when he came back at around 01.00 p.m., the lock was broken and a boy came running out. An amount of Rs.9800/- was stolen. The boy was caught by the villagers. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.96/2004 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner and one more person for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court framed charges and after full-fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above and the appeal preferred there against also came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred. 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 2004. The offences involved are trespassing and theft. The petitioner was a young man at that time. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 19 years. He has remained in custody for 125 days during trial and at present he is in custody. He is a poor person belonging to weaker section of the society. The offences involved are trespassing and theft. The petitioner was a young man at that time. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 19 years. He has remained in custody for 125 days during trial and at present he is in custody. He is a poor person belonging to weaker section of the society. 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. 5. 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 period. 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 2004 and the offences alleged are of trivial nature. The petitioner was a young boy at that time. He is poor person belonging to lower echelons of the society. This revision petition is pending before this court for last 6 years. 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 19 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He has already remained behind the bars for 125 days during trial and at present he is in judicial custody. 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. He has already remained behind the bars for 125 days during trial and at present he is in judicial custody. 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. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar in Criminal Original Case No.216/2004 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.42/2011 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 judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.