[2025:RJ-JP:42681] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1448/2006 Ramesh Chand S/o Ram Ratan, R/o Village Ramnagar Chhiparod, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Balwada, Adv. Mr. Sohan Kumawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 17/10/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chand against the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2006 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006 (Ramesh Chand & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been partly allowed, judgment and order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in criminal case No.128/2005 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC has been affirmed but the sentence awarded to him by the trial court to undergo three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 [2025:RJ-JP:42681] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1448/2006] months' S.I., has been reduced to two years R.I with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that Dr. Mushtak Ahmed(PW-1) submitted a written report to the effect that in the morning of 28.08.2004 between 08:00 AM to 11:00 AM his hero honda splender motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 28 1M 3898 parked near the gate of the Hospital Premises had been stolen. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.548/04 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Baran for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced but since neither the whereabouts of the thief were known nor the stolen motor cycle was recovered, F.R. was submitted by the police and the same was accepted by the trial court on 09.11.2004. Thereafter, as per the order of Superintendent of Police, case was reopened and the same was sent to SHO Police Station, Chipabarod for re- investigation. During course of the investigation, accused petitioner Ramesh Chand and co-accused Chinder Singh were arrested and stolen motor cycle was recovered. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand and co-accused Chinder Singh for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed the judgment and order dated 29.06.2006 whereby the trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section 379 IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the [2025:RJ-JP:42681] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1448/2006] offence under Section 411 IPC as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2006, accused- petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 21.11.2006 while partly allowing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial court qua conviction but reduced the sentence, as mentioned above. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not want to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2004 i.e. around 21 years ago; accused-petitioner was about 24 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 45 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 21 years; accused-petitioner, who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and accused-petitioner remained in custody for more than 4 months and no previous cases have been recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram [2025:RJ-JP:42681] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1448/2006] Kalyan vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3157) and the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1286/2018) decided on 01.03.2019 and in Sikander urf Mitthu Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 170/2013) decided on 13.05.2013. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate while opposing the revision petition submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and reduced by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner- Ramesh Chand, who [2025:RJ-JP:42681] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1448/2006] was only 24 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 21 years of age and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment. 11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 12. After perusing judgments and order impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 13. Consequently, the judgment dated 21.11.2006 and the judgment and order dated 29.06.2006 passed by both the courts [2025:RJ-JP:42681] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1448/2006] below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are affirmed but the quantum of sentence, awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled. 14. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Anu/23