Banshi @ Banshiya vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Banshi @ Banshiya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 818 of 2002, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 529 of 2002.
Decided On : 14-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Bathi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 457 and 380, Section 411 - Criminal Revision Petition against conviction and sentence - Petitioners convicted and sentenced for burglary and theft, sentence modified considering the protracted trial and ages of petitioners - Right to speedy trial emphasized as a constitutional guarantee. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted for theft and burglary. The offences occurred in 1998, leading to a prolonged trial of over 25 years. The petitioners' ages at the time of the offence were 20 and 54 years. They requested leniency in sentencing based on their prolonged court experience and age.

Findings of Court:
The court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners as just and sufficient in the interest of justice.

Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of reducing the sentence after a lengthy trial period and the ages of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the importance of the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing that the prolonged nature of the proceedings and the petitioners' age warranted a lenient approach towards sentencing. Judicial precedents were cited to support this view.

Result: The revision petitions are allowed in part; sentences modified accordingly.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case regarding conviction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for reduction of sentence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning on conviction and sentence. (Para 5 , 6)
4. modification of sentence based on legal precedents. (Para 7)
5. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing these two Criminal Revision Petitions challenge has been made to the judgement dated 10.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pratapgarh in Criminal appeal No.39/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.490/1998; whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

S. No.	Name of the petitioner	Offence for which conviced	Sentence, fine and default sentence
1.	Banshi @ Banshiya	Section 457 of the IPC	One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment Section 380 of the IPC Six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment
1.	Banshi @ Banshiya	Section 380 of the IPC	Six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment
2.	Shyam Lal	Section 411 of the IPC	Three months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision petitions are that on 27.10.1998 at 06.20 p.m. complainant Praveen Pareek submitted a report to the SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh to the effect that in the night of 05.10.1998, some unknown persons broke into his shop named Pareek Sales Corporation situated at M.G. Road, in front of Samta Talkies and stole 3 bundles of wire, Motor Bush, 3 silver coins and Rs.400/- cash. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.378/1998 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against petitioners. After conducting a full-fledged trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners in the manner stated above vide judgement dated 03.07.2001. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 10.07.2002 while affirming the conviction and maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition is preferred by them.

3. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confine 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 1998. The petitioners were 20 and 54 years of age at that time. Presently, they are aged 45 and 79 years respectively. The petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted trial for long 25 years. Petitioner Banshi has remained in custody for more than 6 months, while petitioner Shyam Lal has also remained in custody for few days. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the present petitioners to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel pray that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

4. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and the case is pending since long.

5. Since the revision petition ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document