HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.814/2006 Raghuveer Prasad S/o Durga Prasad Resident of Kutti Mansadas P.S. Khedali District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Confined at Alwar Jail) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Kaushik Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been lead to the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.7/2005 by which the Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal had upheld the judgment dated 28.03.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.23/276/99 whereby the Trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and if default in payment of fine to further undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment but the Appellate Court has reduced the petitioner’s three year sentence to two years. (2 of 4) [CRLR-814/2006] 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.1999, the complainant-Urmila Sharma lodged a report with the police station alleging therein that on 10.07.1999 around 11:00 AM in the morning when she was returning back to her home after taking medicines from the hospital and when she was giving money to the Richkshawwala, a person came and snatched gold chain from the neck of his daughter and ran away. Kamal Kumar Sain saw the accused, while snatching the chain and he was knowing the accused by name. 3. Upon this report, an FIR No.383/1999 was registered under Sections 379 and 392 IPC and, thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence and even cognizance was also taken for the above offences, however, charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC and the petitioner denied the charges and faced the trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited five documents. Thereafter, explanation of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his participation in the incident and submitted that he has been falsely booked in this case. In defence, statement of DW-1, Brahma Devi was recorded. 5. Upon the conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 28.03.2003 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the judgment of conviction reduced the sentence of the petitioner to two years. (3 of 4) [CRLR-814/2006] 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge the findings of conviction but looking to the fact that the incident is related to the year 1999 and out of total sentence of two years, the petitioner has already suffered the sentence of more than three months. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent of the similar nature, therefore, he has prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the above offences be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that neither there is any occasion to interfere with the judgment and sentence awarded to the petitioner nor any compassion and sympathy is called for in this case. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. This fact is not in dispute that the incident relates to the year 1999 and the petitioner has faced agony of protracted trial and he has already suffered sentence of more than three months. During the course of trial and after conviction, he remained in custody with effect from 11.07.1999 till 20.07.1999 during the course of trial thereafter, he remained in jail w.e.f. 18.07.2006 till 04.10.2006 after conviction. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial and also looking to the fact that the incident occurred more than 25 years back and the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents of the offences of (4 of 4) [CRLR-814/2006] similar nature and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs.5000/- with the Trial Court within a period of two months from today, failing which he would suffer sentence of one month simple imprisonment. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the fine amount within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court is expected to proceed against him in accordance with law. 12. Office is directed to send the record of the Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/11