Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 992 (RAJ)

Harlal v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2023-05-02

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER 1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar in Criminal appeal No.15/2022 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar in Criminal Regular Case No. 7/2015 (CIS No.108/2015) whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. However, the learned appellate court reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment of 1 year awarded by the trial court to simple imprisonment of 6 months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.10.2014, an FIR came to be lodged at the instance of one Subhash Joshi regarding theft of his Bolero vehicle. The Police registered the FIR No.511/2014. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against him under Sections 379 IPC. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 379 of the IPC vide judgment dated 22.08.2022 and sentenced him to undergo 1 year's simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar, which while affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, reduced the sentence to 6 months. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner do not wish to press the present revision petition in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submission on the point of sentence only. He submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the present petitioner. It was his first case. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgments. The incident is of the year 2014 and he is facing the rigour of trial since then. He submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the present petitioner. It was his first case. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgments. The incident is of the year 2014 and he is facing the rigour of trial since then. The petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of about 5 months out of the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment as awarded by the appellate court, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner 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 around 5 months. 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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. As far as the question of sentence in concerned, it is true that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 5 months and the total sentence awarded to him is 6 months only. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered nearly 5 months' incarceration out of the sentence of 6 months imposed upon him as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date. 7. 7. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar in Criminal Regular Case No. 7/2015 (CIS No.108/2015) as well as the judgment of appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar in Criminal appeal No.15/2022 dated 23.11.2022 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court and reduced by the appellate court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 8. The revision petition is allowed in part. 9. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.