Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishnaram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1318) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1318]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 909/2006
Kishnaram S/o Aada, By caste Mali, R/o Veradoli, Jalore, District
Jalore (At present lodged in District Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 08/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No.54/2003 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, in Criminal Original Case No.141/2001 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC Six months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 07 days'
Simple imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC One year's Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 07 days'
Simple imprisonment
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:43:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (2 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
2. Both 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 Ganga Singh gave a written report at Police Station Jalore alleging therein on 21.02.2001 at about 7.30 a.m. Mooparam was walking on the left side of the road on Jalore Nakoda Road. A Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-19-C-4917 driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, hit Mooparam. Due to which Mooparam succumbed to injuries. Upon the aforesaid information, 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined. 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 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 20.09.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. (Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:43:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:1318] (3 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay 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 2001. He had remained in jail for twenty 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 30 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 54 years and has been facing trial since the year 2001 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 twenty 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 24 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada (Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:43:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:1318] (4 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006] 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 25.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, in Criminal Original Case No.141/2001 and the judgment dated 20.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No.54/2003 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, as ordered by the learned trial Court, is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,000/- in total. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:43:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (5 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 14-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:43:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)