Jafar Mohammad vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5020 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/1999

Jafar Mohammad
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. H.M. Saraswat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                     Order

04/04/2022

1.   In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.   This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:


     "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the revision
     petition may kindly be accepted and Judgment of
     lower courts dated 4/5/99 and 19/7/96 be quashed
     and set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from all
     the charges. In alternative the petitioner be given
     benefit of probation in the interest of justice."

3.   The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year

1986 and the present revision petition has been pending since the

year 1999.




                     (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 08:27:37 PM)
                                           (2 of 4)                [CRLR-310/1999]



4.      Vide the impugned judgment dated 19.07.1976, the learned

trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section

304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple

imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment

of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment; further

conviction of the petitioner was made under Section 89/118 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, alongwith a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of

payment of fine, to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

Appeal there against was also dismissed by the learned appellate

court vide the impugned judgment dated 04.05.1999. The offence

under Section 304A IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is

nothing on record to show that the accident in question was

caused by the petitioner intentionally, and he was not driving the

offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, rather the

accident in question was caused due to mechanical defect in the

offending vehicle. However, learned counsel submits that the

sentence awarded to the petitioner has already been suspended

by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.05.1999 passed in S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.177/1999, and thus, he is on

bail.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

case, this Court is not inclined to acquit the petitioner of the

charges levelled against him, but looking to his age, no previous

criminal antecedent against him, he is entitled to be extended the

benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958



                      (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 08:27:37 PM)
                                           (3 of 4)                   [CRLR-310/1999]



(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')                and as per Section 360

Cr.P.C.

7.    On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing

the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,

submits that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the

evidence placed before it, including that the petitioner after

causing the accident, ran away from the offending vehicle, without

even caring to take the deceased to the nearest hospital for

necessary treatment. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the

learned   courts   below        have      rightly      passed      the   impugned

judgments, which may not be interfered with by this Court.

8.    Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

9.    This Court is conscious of the fact that the offence under

Section 304A IPC, as mentioned above, is punishable with an

imprisonment not more than two years.

10    Further, there is no material on record that the accused-

appellant is having any previous criminal antecedents.                           Apart

therefrom,   on    an     overall      consideration          of   the   facts    and

circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant deserves to be

granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Act, more particularly,

in view of the legislative intent of the Act.

11.   Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the conviction of the present accused-petitioner for

the offence under Section 304A IPC and Section 89/118 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, as recorded by the learned trial court in the

impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence

part of the said judgment, and directs that the petitioner shall be

released, after due admonition, under Section 3 of the Act. The

                      (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 08:27:37 PM)
                                                                           (4 of 4)                [CRLR-310/1999]



                                   petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand

                                   discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of.

                                   Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.



                                                               (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

56-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)