[2026:RJ-JP:2208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 828/2008 Ugam Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Ratanpura, Police Station Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 19/01/2026 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 – Ugam Singh against the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Ajmer (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 283/2007(311/2007) (Ugam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been partly allowed and the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, City- North, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 58/07(141/93) (State of Rajasthan vs. Ugam Singh) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 & 420 of I.P.C. has been affirmed but the sentence has been modified as indicated below:- [2026:RJ-JP:2208] (2 of 6) [CRLR-828/2008] Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court Sentence awarded by the appellate court under Section 379 IPC to undergo 2 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I. to undergo 1 year S.I. with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I. under Section 420 IPC to undergo 2 years' S.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I. to undergo 1 year S.I. with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 25.12.1992, complainant- Rameshwar Dayal (PW-4) submitted a tehriri report (Ex. P/3) in the Police Station- Civil lines, to the effect that he is the resident of Meharadasi, District Jhunjhunu. An unknown person came to him disclosing his name as R.N. Chaudhary and stated that he is from Ajmer and gets the people recruited in Indian Army in Rs. 20,000/- per person. On 02.05.1992, complainant and five persons namely Mahaveer, Subhash s/o Bheraram, Subhash s/o Bishna Ram, Suresh and Vijay Singh took Rs. 1 lakh in a bag and came to Ajmer with R. N. Chaudhary. All the five persons were made to sit at Bus stand with the bag and R.N. Chaudhary took complainant towards BRO and he was made to sit at a tea shop. The complainant waited there for quite long time, but Mr. Chaudhary didn't come back and took away the bag of Rs. 1 lakh by deceiving 5 persons. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 239/92 was registered at Police Station Civil lines, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 [2026:RJ-JP:2208] (3 of 6) [CRLR-828/2008] of IPC before the concerned court. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence section 420/379 of IPC, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed the judgment and order dated 26.09.2007 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 379 & 420 IPC as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2007, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 28.07.2008 while partly allowing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial court qua conviction but reduced the sentence, 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-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 1992 i.e. around 33 years ago; accused-petitioner was about 26 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 59 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 33 years; accused-petitioner, who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and accused-petitioner remained in custody for about 11 months, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and [2026:RJ-JP:2208] (4 of 6) [CRLR-828/2008] 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 in the case of Sikander urf Mitthu Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 170/2013) decided on 13.05.2013 and the judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of 'Pyar Chand Vs. State' (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 374/1995) decided on 08.08.2017. 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. 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- 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2208] (5 of 6) [CRLR-828/2008] the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 26 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 33 years of age and he 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 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 order 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-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the [2026:RJ-JP:2208] (6 of 6) [CRLR-828/2008] petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 13. Consequently, the judgment dated 28.07.2008 and the judgment and order dated 26.09.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are affirmed but the quantum of sentence, awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, is reduced 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. 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/118