The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to duration already served, considering the long trial, the petitioner's age, and societal status.

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. 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 Constitu