Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:9020) on 21 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:9020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2004
Gopal S/o Magan Lal, B/c Aanjana, R/o Basad, PS Pratapgarh,
District Chittorgarh.
(At present lodged at Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 21/02/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.105/1992 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
(Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:50:22 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9020] (2 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
Sec. 304A IPC 1 year's SI Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 3 months' SI
Sec. 134/187 MV --- Rs.200/- and in default of
Act payment of fine, 10 days' SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.04.1992 at about 4:00 p.m., complainant Kesia Meena gave an oral report to the Police at Government Hospital, Pratapgarh to the effect that after loading stones in the Tractor bearing No.RNM 1547, he along with one Rakma was returning to Pratapgarh. The said tractor was being driven by petitioner Gopal. When they reached near Imli Bus Stand, some passengers sat in the trolley of the tractor and thereafter, the petitioner drove the tractor rashly and negligently and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the tractor- trolley overturned and the persons sitting in the trolley sustained severe injuries. Upon the aforesaid oral report, an FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:50:22 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9020] (3 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004] the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act vide judgment dated 20.11.2003 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Purohit, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1992. He had remained in jail for eight days after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 26 years old at the time of incident now, he is aged about 58 years and is facing trial since the year 1992 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about eight days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.
(Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:50:22 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9020] (4 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 32 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of one year as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.105/1992 and the judgment dated 14.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/2004 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:50:22 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9020] (5 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004] justice. The fine amount is also waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 34-MS/-
(Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:50:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)