Abdul Hakim, Bhuriya @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 21st of June, 2014, passed by

Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’), whereby learned appellate Court, while rejecting the appeal

preferred by petitioner, affirmed verdict dated 6th of January, 2014, rendered by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned

trial Court’).Â

Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 6th of January 2014, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and

sentenced him as under :-

S.No.  Section            Sentence         Fine (Rs.)        Sentence in default of payment of fine

1         457 IPC           5 years’ S.I.     100/-              One

month’s simple imprisonment.

2         380 IPC           5 years’S.I.      100/-              One

month’s simple imprisonment.

Learned trial Court also directed the sentences to run concurrently.

The facts, in brief, are that on 10th of August, 2012 complainant Laxman Singh submitted a written report at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara,

inter alia, stating that in the night of 08.08.2012, while he was sleeping in the Bada of his house, he received a telephonic call from his daughter-in-law,

Kismat Kanwar at 1 O’clock, who informed him about some thieves entering in the house. The complainant tried to enter into house but door of

the house was bolted from inside. On his shouting, the neighbours woke up and thereafter he entered the house by jumping wall and found that gold

ornaments, household articles and cloths had been stolen. On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No.373/2012 for offence under Sections

457 and 380 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, accused-petitioner was arrested. After filing charge-sheet, learned trial Court

framed charge for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC against petitioner. On denial, the petitioner was put on trial. Â

In order to prove charge against accused-petitioner, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents. Subsequently,

statement of accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and learned trial Court proceeded to hear final arguments. Learned trial

Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, by its verdict dated 6th of January, 2014, convicted and sentenced the accused-

petitioner as aforesaid for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 6th of January, 2014, the petitioner approached learned appellate Court by filing an appeal but the same was

dismissed vide order dated 21st of June.  It is, in that background, petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he is not challenging the indictment and conviction of the petitioner for the

aforesaid offences but simply craved for leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to him.  Learned counsel would contend that looking to the

criminal delinquency of petitioner some reprive may be given in the quantum of punishment by reducing the same to the extent already undergone by

him. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner has already undergone substantial sentence out of the maximum substantive sentence of

five years’ simple imprisonment, therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence.   Learned counsel

has further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated 21.04.2016, while deciding Cr. Revision Petition bearing No.815/2015 filed by co-

accused Ishak, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to already undergone. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that in totality of

circumstances and considering the fact that incident is almost six years’ old, sentence awarded to the petitioner be altered by reducing the same to

the period he has already undergone.Â

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public

Prosecutor submits that looking to the proven criminal delinquency of the petitioner, no reprive in the quantum of punishment is desirable.Â

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record.

The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in the instant revision petition, lies in narrow compass inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioner

has abandoned challenge to his indictment and conviction for the proved offences. Now, the only question, which requires consideration is the

quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioner by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court. There remains no quarrel that

incident has occurred in 2012 and since then almost six years have elapsed and furthermore petitioner has already served the substantial sentence,

therefore, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the

fine.

In the wake of aforesaid discussion, the present revision deserves to be partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of and appellant his sentence is

reduced to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine.

Resultantly, the revision petition is hereby accepted in part and while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, as recorded by trial court and affirmed

by appellate Court, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned trial court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The

petitioner, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith upon depositing fine of Rs.200/-, if not required in any other case.Â