Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1257 (RAJ)

FAIM AND ANR. v. STATE

2025-05-07

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner No.1 – Faim passed away and submitted his death certificate which is hereby taken on record. 2. In these circumstances, the present criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner No.1 – Faim is dismissed as abated. 3. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.62/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, upheld the judgment dated 05.10.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.1812/2003 by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jahajpur, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 454 IPC 3 years’ S.I. Rs.1,000/- each 3 months’ S.I. Section 380 IPC 2 years’ S.I. Rs.1,000/- each 3 months’ S.I. 4. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2003, complainant Basant Kumar filed a complaint inter alia alleging that some unknown persons unauthorisedly entered his house at about 3 PM and committed a theft at his house and stolen some cash and jwellery. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused petitioner for offences under Section 454 & 380 IPC and started investigation. 6. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. 8. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 05.10.2004 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence. 9. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2007. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2007. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. 10. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2003 and out of total sentence of three years’ S.I., the accused petitioner has already served more than two years of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 12. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 13. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than two years in custody out of three years of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 15. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.