Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moti Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4930) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:4930]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1061/2007
Moti Lal S/o Sh. Tej Raj, R/o Village Panthedi, Tehsil Sayala,
Distt. Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 22/01/2025 This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr. Appeal No.32/2005 whereby the judgment dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalore in Cr. Original Case No.16/2001 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:
Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 279 IPC 6 months' R.I and fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I. 304-A IPC 1 year's R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' S.I. 337 IPC 3 month's R.I and fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I. 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act A fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of (Downloaded on 07/02/2025 at 10:52:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:4930] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007] payment of fine to undergo 15 days' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that as per the Parcha Bayan of the complainant on 01.05.2000, at around 03:00 P.M., near his agricultural field, the petitioner who was driving his car hit the Jaga Ram's motorcycle. As the result, Jaga Ram died on the spot. On the basis of this, an FIR No.56/2000 was registered at Police Station Sayala, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC and the investigation was commenced. The investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation found the driver of the offending car to be the present petitioner and the chargesheet for the offences under Secitons 279, 337 & 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act was filed against the present petitioner.
Upon completion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences under Section 279, 334 & 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 24.10.2007 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.282/2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against him since 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long (Downloaded on 07/02/2025 at 10:52:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:4930] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007] protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to him may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending adjudication since the year 2007.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the (Downloaded on 07/02/2025 at 10:52:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:4930] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007] sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR), J 25-divya/-(Downloaded on 07/02/2025 at 10:52:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)