[2025:RJ-JP:45683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1252/2024 Amir Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Ismile, R/o Sunde Nagar, Ward No. 07, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Jaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 13/11/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner– Amir Khan against the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge no. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2023 (Amir Khan vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate no. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan First (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 22/2022 (State of Rajasthan vs. Amir Khan & Anr.) convicting the accused petitioner and the co-accused Chandra Prakash for the offence under Sections 382 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo three years’ rigorous [2025:RJ-JP:45683] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1252/2024] imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment, has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case in short are that complainant Chandrika (P.W. 1) submitted a report in Police Station Shayam Nagar, Jaipur to the effect that on 09.11.2021 in the morning, when she was returning from the temple with her husband and turning at the corner of Mr. Rastogi's house, then two persons came on motorcycle from backside and snatched two tolas gold chain, which was worn by the complainant in her neck and fled away. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 445/2021 at Police Station Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Sections 382 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused persons for the offence under Section 382 IPC before the concerned court. Charge was framed against the accused persons, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 26.05.2023 convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner and co-accused Chandra Prakash for the offence under Sections 382 IPC as indicated above. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.27/2023 and co-accused-Chandra Prakash filed Criminal Appeal No.28/2023 before the appellate court and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 04.07.2024 dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgment dated 26.05.2023 passed by the trial court. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner only. [2025:RJ-JP:45683] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1252/2024] 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 2021 i.e. around 4 years ago; accused-petitioner was 30 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 34 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 4 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of about one and a half year, whereas the sentence awarded to him is of 3 years, therefore, she prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence 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 coordinate bench of this court in Vinod Vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP (S.B Criminal Revision Petition no. 661/2024) decided on 08.05.2025 and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Rani Vs. State of Punjab (CRR- 645 of 2021) decided on 02.02.2021. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and [2025:RJ-JP:45683] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1252/2024] circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. He further submits that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender, hence his sentence should not be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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. 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, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 30 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 4 years and he remained in custody for about one and a half year out of total sentence of three years, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail to complete remaining part of his sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:45683] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1252/2024] 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. Consequently, the judgments dated 04.07.2024 and 26.05.2023 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 382 IPC are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused- petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is hereby enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 1000/- along with default stipulation. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine. The accused petitioner is in jail, therefore jail authorities are directed to release the accused- [2025:RJ-JP:45683] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1252/2024] petitioner from jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 13. The petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 481 of BNSS before the concerned trial court within four weeks from the date of his release, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioner, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months. 14. Office is directed to send release order along with a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance immediately. A copy of this order along with records be also sent to the trial court forthwith. 15. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/ 84