RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. B. Criminal Jail Revision No 180 of 1978 filed by Rajendra Singh and S. B. Criminal Jail Revision No 181 of 1978, presented by Damar Singh arise out of one and the same judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated July 3, 1978, by which the convictions of the petitioners' under section 457 read with section 75 and 380 read with 75, I. P. C. were maintained but the sentences of three year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of them on each count were reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years' and in addition thereto a fine of Rs 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed on each count in lieu of the remitted part of the sentence. The sentences awarded to each petitioner were, however, ordered to run concurrently. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these two revision petitions, they are disposed of together by one judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the petitioners was as follows:

(3.) UPON perusal of the record I am satisfied that the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted each petitioner only after framing the necessary charges and after reading over and explaining the same to him, to which he pleaded guilty. The Judicial Magistrate recorded the plea of guilty of each petitioner. The plea of guilty was clear and unambiguous, as indicated above. It contained an admission of the facts on which the charges were framed and also an admission of the guilt in respect of them. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners admitted the offences under a misapprehension or on account of any pressure being brought to bear on their minds by any outside agency. Consequently, I see absolutely no reason to disturb the findings of the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioners under sections 457 read with 75 and 380 read with 75 I. P. C. because both of them clearly admitted to have committed the theft and sold away the gold belonging to the complainant and further admitted to have been previously convicted in cases of theft. Their convictions in these circumstances must be maintained.