RATNA @ RATAN LAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-002298-002298 / 2014
Diary number: 24956 / 2014
Advocates: AISHWARYA BHATI Vs
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