Samay Singh v. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the

: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore,AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment / Order 22/08/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Samay Singh against Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 59/2007 (Samay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 29.07.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 44/2001 (State of Rajasthan vs. Samay Singh) convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 457 & 380 IPC., was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:- offence sentence sentence in u/s 457 3 years R.I Rs. 1000/- 2 months'R.I default [2025:RJ-JP:33354] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1245/2007] u/s 380 IPC 2 years R.I Rs. 500/- 2 months'R.I (All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report submitted by Patiram (P.W. 2) with respect to an incident occurred on 06/07.05.2000, wherein the allegation of lurking house trespass by night and committing theft of gold, silver ornaments and cash was leveled, F.I.R. No. 182/2000 was registered at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner 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 29.07.2003 convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of I.P.C, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.07.2003, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which was dismissed by the appellate court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year [2025:RJ-JP:33354] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1245/2007] 2000 i.e. around 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 20 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 45 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 custody for a period of around two months 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 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

7. Per contra, learned Additional 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 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, [2025:RJ-JP:33354] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1245/2007] 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 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 20 years young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 25 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:33354] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1245/2007] 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-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

13. Consequently, the judgments dated 31.10.2007 and

29.07.2003 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner 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-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and 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 are discharged.

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. Anu /28 (BHUWAN GOYAL),J