MOHAN @ MOTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397 and 401 Penal Code against the judgment dated 14.2.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No.17/2013 whereby the judgment dated 24.4.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh in Cr. Regular Case No.245/2007 was upheld by which the petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 457 and 380 Penal Code and the following sentence was passed against him. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_320_LAWS(RAJ)12_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of report Ex.P/1 a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner for committing an offence of lurking house trespass and theft and after trial, the learned trial court gave finding that petitioner is guilty for the aforesaid offence, but in fact, the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved by the prosecution. More so, the entire prosecution story hangs upon the recovery effected at the instance of the accused-petitioner but the manner in which the recovery of Nath at the instance of the accused petitioner appears to be highlighted is dubious and no relation can be placed upon it. It is also submitted that the so called information furnished under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act was not given thoroughly but the Investigating Officer prepared a false case against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the testimony of the eye witnesses of the recovery of course does not infer confidence of the Court because there are major contradiction and discrepancies in their statements. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the finding of both the courts below then sentence awarded to the appellant may kindly be reduced from 3 years to the period already undergone.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is very serious, that too, against the society, therefore, no lenient view is required to be taken in this revision petition. As per the learned Public Prosecutor the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and recovery of Nath is also made at the instance of the petitioner from the shop of PW-6 Banshi Lal to whom the petitioner sold the Nath which is stolen by him. Therefore, this revision petition may be dismissed.