Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17183) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (1 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
AHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 575/2007
Devi Lal S/o Shri Kamji Damore Meena, R/o Vagdari-Fala-Upala,
Police Station-Sadar Dungarpur, District-Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 02/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 22.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.14/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, in Regular Criminal Case No.28/2003 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Sec. 279 & 337 3 months SI and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of IPC payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI Sec. 338 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI Sec. 304A IPC 1 year SI and fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI (Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17183] (2 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
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 complainant Babulal Aamliya Meena submitted a written report at Police Station Bichhiwara to the effect that on 21.11.2002, he along with his family members were going to Ramsagra in a Truck bearing No.RJJ 4757. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck driver, the truck overturned. As a result of which, his father Kanka died on the spot. The said truck was being driven by the accused- petitioner. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and certain 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 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 vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 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 22.06.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. (Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17183] (3 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 2002. The appellant had remained in jail for about seven 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 46 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 69 years and has been facing trial since the year 2003 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 seven days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.
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 has been facing the rigor for last 22 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 (Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17183] (4 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007] 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 incarceration for some days 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 dated 12.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.28/2003 and the judgment dated 22.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.14/2004 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 justice. The fine amount is hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo the default sentence. The petitioner is on bail. He need not 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 (Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17183] (5 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007] 22-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)