[2025:RJ-JD:34089]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1056/2008 Sahib Singh S/o Shyam Singh, R/o Ward No.3, Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma Mr. Shiva Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Rathore, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

01/08/2025

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007, whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.07.2007 rendered by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No.380/2004.

2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to three years' simple imprisonment coupled with a fine of ₹2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo an additional three months' simple imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not press the present revision petition insofar as it pertains to the finding of conviction. The challenge is confined only to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the occurrence in question dates back to the year 2004 and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for few days. It is contended that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to serve the remainder of the sentence, especially considering the passage of time, the nature of the offence, and the petitioner’s antecedents. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view be taken and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be suitably reduced to the period already undergone.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. I have also perused the impugned orders and the materials available on record.

5. So far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, in view of the fair concession made by the learned counsel, and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. There appears to be no patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference in the conclusion as to guilt. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby upheld and maintained.

6. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, it is not disputed that the incident in question occurred in the year 2001 and the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a considerable duration during the course of trial and post-conviction— for few days. Additionally, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is now aged and is a person of limited financial means. He has suffered the ordeal of a prolonged litigation extending over two decades, thereby undergoing immense mental agony and social distress.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, including the age and socio-economic status of the petitioner, the length of the pendency of proceedings, the fact that he has already undergone part of the custodial sentence, and more particularly the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678, and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC, as recorded by the learned Addl.