Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2298 OF 2014

RATNA @ RATAN LAL AND ANOTHER …. Appellants

Versus

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. This  appeal  by  special  leave  to  appeal  arises  out  of  final  

judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the High Court  of  

Judicature  for  Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur  in  Criminal  Revision  Petition  

No.165 of 1995 by which the High Court was pleased to dismiss the  

revision  and  affirm  the  view  taken  by  the  Special  Judge  SC/ST,  

Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 1992.

2. This  matter  arises  out  of  FIR  No.1  of  1988  registered  on  

06.01.1988 under Section 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for

Page 2

short “the IPC”) with Police Station, Fateh Nagar, pursuant to PW14  

Rupa submitting a report regarding theft at his house situate in village  

Lakha Ka Kheda on 31.12.1987.  It was reported that some unknown  

persons had committed theft at his house by breaking open the lock  

and that some pieces of silver and gold jewellery were stolen.  In the  

further report submitted on the same day it was stated that the value of  

the articles and cash which was stolen were to the tune of Rs.64,000/-.  

The complainant PW14 Rupa suspected Ratna who is appellant No.1  

herein.   During the course of  investigation Appellant  Nos.1 and 2,  

namely, Ratna and Uda were arrested and pursuant to their statements  

under  Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act,  namely,  Ext.P15  and  P16  

respectively, the stolen articles were recovered.

3. In  the  trial  the  prosecution  examined  fourteen  witnesses  to  

bring home the charge under Section 454 and 380 of the IPC against –  

Ratna and Uda.  Accepting the case of the prosecution and holding  

inter alia that the recovery of stolen articles stood proved, the learned  

trial court convicted both the accused under Sections 454 and 380 IPC  

and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and  

7 years respectively on aforesaid counts with imposition of  fine of  

Rs.2500/-  against  each of the accused on both counts,  with further  

2

Page 3

sentence of six months simple imprisonment in default of payment of  

fine.  It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.  In  

the appeal preferred by both the accused, the learned Special Judge,  

SC/ST  ANP,  Udaipur  affirmed  the  conviction  on  both  counts  but  

reduced the sentence to two years and five years respectively on each  

of the aforesaid counts maintaining the quantum of fine and sentence  

in default.  The revision preferred by both the accused before the High  

Court  was  dismissed  maintaining  the  conviction  and  sentence  as  

recorded by the appellate court which led to the filing of the present  

appeal by special leave.

4. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for the  

appellants and Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for  

the  respondent  –  State.   Having gone through the  record  with  the  

assistance of the learned Advocates, we are not persuaded to take a  

different  view  on  the  issue  of  conviction  of  the  appellants.   We,  

however,  deem it  appropriate,  in the light  of  the facts  of  the case,  

including  the  length  of  time  the  matter  has  taken,  to  reduce  the  

sentence to one year for the offence under Section 454 IPC and 18  

months  for  the  offence  under  Section  380  IPC,  maintaining  the  

sentence of fine and default sentence, as recorded by the courts below.  

3

Page 4

Substantive  sentences  on  both  counts  shall  run  concurrently.   The  

appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.  

………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, November 14,  2014

4