[2025:RJ-JP:42210] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 824/2007 1. Mahaveer S/o Nanga, R/o Gangroli P.S. Nadbai, District Bharatpur 2. Jaiprakash S/o Pratap Singh, R/o Naglaloka, P.S. Baledeo, District Mathura (U.P) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P 2. Pradhumna Kumar Sharma S/o Om Prakash, P.S. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.M. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 15/10/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioners Mahaveer & Anr. against the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 1, Bayana, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 13/99 (Mahaveer & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioners has been dismissed qua conviction as recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bayana, District Bharatpur vide its judgment and order dated 23.01.1999 in Criminal Regular Case no. 12/98 (State of Rajasthan vs. Mahaveer & Anr.) and modified their sentence as mentioned below:- Accused-Petitioner- Mahaveer [2025:RJ-JP:42210] (2 of 6) [CRLR-824/2007] Offence Sentence modified by the appellate court Sentence awarded by the trial Court Section 379 IPC to undergo one year's R.I with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's imprisonment. to undergo three years' R.I with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' imprisonment. Accused-Petitioner- Jaiprakash Offence Sentence modified by the appellate court Sentence awarded by the trial Court Section 411 IPC to undergo one year's R.I with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's imprisonment. to undergo three years' R.I with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 30.09.1997, a written report (Ex.P/5) was submitted by Pradyumna Kumar at Police Station, Bayana, Bharatpur stating that on the same day around 8.00 P.M., he was sitting with his colleague Brijendra Kumar in the house of Jagdish Bansal situated on Morena road, Bayana. He had parked his motorcycle Rajdhoot bearing registration no. R.J 05/1 M- 8562 outside the gate of his house and its handle was locked. When he came out of the house after 15 minutes, he saw that his motorcycle has been stolen by some one else. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 517/97 was registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and investigation also commenced. During course of the investigation, accused-Mahaveer was arrested and on the basis of information given by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, said motor cycle was recovered from the possession of accused- Jai Prakash. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused Mahaveer for the offence under [2025:RJ-JP:42210] (3 of 6) [CRLR-824/2007] Sections 379 and against Jai Prakash for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. The accused-petitioners denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed the judgment and order dated 23.01.1999, convicted the accused-petitioner- Mahaveer for the offence under Section 379 IPC but acquitted him for the offence under Section 411 IPC and convicted the accused- petitioner- Jaiprakash for the offence under Section 411 IPC but acquitted him for the offence under Section 379 IPC as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.01.1999, accused-persons preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the judgment dated 26.07.2007 dismissing the appeal qua conviction of the accused persons but modified the judgment qua sentence passed by the trial court 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-petitioners 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-petitioners has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1997 i.e. around 28 years ago; accused-petitioner Mahaveer was about 28 years of age and accused-petitioner- Jaiprakash was about 19 years of age at the time of incident and now they are [2025:RJ-JP:42210] (4 of 6) [CRLR-824/2007] around 56 and 47 years old respectively and facing agony of trial since last more than 28 years; accused-petitioners who are sole bread earner in the family, belong to poor strata of society and accused-petitioners remained in custody for a period of about 20 days and there are no previous cases recorded against the accused-petitioners, 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-petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram 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 modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:42210] (5 of 6) [CRLR-824/2007] 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- petitioners 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-petitioners. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner- Mahaveer and Jaiprakash, who were only 28 and 19 years of age respectively at the time of incident, have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 28 years of age and they 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42210] (6 of 6) [CRLR-824/2007] 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 orders 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-petitioners are sent behind bars, family of the petitioners will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 13. Consequently, the judgments dated 26.07.2007 and 23.01.1999 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners are affirmed but the quantum of sentence, awarded to the accused-petitioners by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their 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 Ritu/46