[2025:RJ-JP:37115] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 956/2008 Raju S/o Latoor, R/o Chipabarod, Police Station Chipabarod, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 906/2008 (1) Dhanraj S/o Shiv Narain R/o Chipabarod Police Station Chipabarod, District Baran (Rajasthan). (2) Kanhaiyalal S/o Badrilal R/o Chipabarod Police Station Chipabarod District Baran (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through P. P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali, Adv. Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 11/09/2025 1. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has submitted the report dated 26.08.2025 sent by S.H.O, Police Station Chipabarod, District Baran. 2. As per report, the accused petitioners are alive. 3. Report is taken on record. [2025:RJ-JP:37115] (2 of 6) [CRLR-956/2008] 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision petitions are heard today together. 5. These present revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed by the accused-petitioners namely Raju, Dhanraj and Kanhaiyalal against Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No.5/2007 (Dhanraj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioners against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 13.02.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chipabarod, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No.815/2003 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhanraj & Ors.) convicting and sentencing them for the offences under sections 457 & 380 IPC., was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioners is as under:- offence sentence fine sentence in default u/s 457 3 years R.I. Rs. 500/- 1 month's Addl.S.I u/s 380 IPC 3 years R.I. Rs. 500/- 1 month's' Addl.S.I (All sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 6. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report dated 18.03.1996 submitted by complainant Mahendra Kumar Jain (PW-1) wherein the allegation of committing theft of one sack of coriander and three sacks of Posta (200 Kilogram) on which name of Mahendra was marked, was leveled. FIR No.127/96 [2025:RJ-JP:37115] (3 of 6) [CRLR-956/2008] was registered at Police Station Chipabarod for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 13.02.2007 convicting and sentencing them for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2007, accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which was dismissed by the appellate court. Hence, these criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the accused-petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners do not wish to press instant revision petitions challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1996 i.e. around 29 years ago; accused-petitioners namely Raju, Dhanraj and Kanhaiyalal were 20, 19 and 22 years of age at the time of incident and now they are around 49, 48 and 51 years old respectively and facing agony of trial since last around 29 years; accused-petitioners who are sole bread earner in the family, belong to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of around three months and there is no previous conviction [2025:RJ-JP:37115] (4 of 6) [CRLR-956/2008] recorded against the accused-petitioners, therefore, they pray 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. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have relied upon the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Gatiya @ Kalia & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 449/1996) decided on 18.05.2017 and Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 CriLJ 2989. 11. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate while opposing the revision petitions, 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 cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 12. 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. 13. Since these revision petitions against conviction of the accused-petitioners are 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. [2025:RJ-JP:37115] (5 of 6) [CRLR-956/2008] 14. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioners, who were 20, 19 and 22 years of age respectively at the time of incident, have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 29 years and they remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioners is produced on record. 15. 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…” 16. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37115] (6 of 6) [CRLR-956/2008] petitioners will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now. 17. Consequently, the judgments dated 01.08.2008 and 13.02.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C., awarded to the accused-petitioners by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and is 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 are discharged. 18. The revision petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence only. 19. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the courts below forthwith. 20. A copy of the order be placed in another connected file. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Gourav/18-19