[2026:RJ-JP:1395] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 228/2008 Lohdey S/o Natthu, R/o Village Parita, Police Station, Kudgaon District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal Mr. Rahul Sharma Ms. Chanchal Mr. Utkarsh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 13/01/2026 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- Lohdey against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fastrack) no. 2, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 137/07 (Lohdey vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 464/2003 (State of Rajasthan vs. Lohdey) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2026:RJ-JP:1395] (2 of 5) [CRLR-228/2008] 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 24.03.2003, complainant Ramesh Chand Sharma (P.W. 5) has submitted a report to SHO, Police Station, Karanpur to the effect that there is a temple of goddess Parvati Devi on Parvati Ki Dangaria in Revenue village in which idol of goddess Parvati was installed, but about two years ago, the said idol was stolen by unknown thief, which has not yet been be recovered. On that basis, F.I.R. No. 09/2003 was registered at Police Station, Karanpur for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The trial court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. as mentioned above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.10.2006, accused- petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the judgment and order dated 25.02.2008 dismissing the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 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 wish 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. [2026:RJ-JP:1395] (3 of 5) [CRLR-228/2008] 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2001 i.e. around 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 28 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 53 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 25 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 145 days and there is no previous conviction 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 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Gatiya @ Kalia & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/1996) decided on 18.05.2017 and Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1412/2018) decided on 17.01.2019. 7. Per contra, learned Government 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 maintained by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. [2026:RJ-JP:1395] (4 of 5) [CRLR-228/2008] 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 judgment/order passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment/order passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgment and order impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue as also the fact that accused-petitioner, who was only 28 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 25 years and he has remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 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:- [2026:RJ-JP:1395] (5 of 5) [CRLR-228/2008] 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 judgment dated 25.02.2008 and order dated 03.10.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. is modified 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. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 14. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Ritu /89