Chaina Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32071)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7121 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32071]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 701/2002

Chaina Ram S/o Jetha Ram B/c Meena, R/o Nadana Bhattan,
Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

DATE OF ORDER                            :::                      13/09/2023
BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a

challenge has been made to the order dated 19.08.2002 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in

Criminal Appeal No.7/1999 whereby the learned appellate Court

dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction

dated 07.06.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Desuri, District Pali in Criminal Case No.192/1988 by which the

learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as

under:-

Offence for          which Substantive                  Fine and default sentence
convicted                  sentence
Section 279 IPC                 Three months' SI        Fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
                                                        payment of fine, additional simple
                                                        imprisonment of 15 days.
Section 304A IPC                One Year's S.I.         Fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
                                                        payment     of   fine   additional
                                                        imprisonment of 15 days





 [2023:RJ-JD:32071]                   (2 of 5)                           [CRLR-701/2002]

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 on 18.09.1988 at

about 4:00 p.m., complainant Bhal Singh submitted a report at

the Police Station Rani to the effect that when he and his family

members were going for performing marriage rituals of his son at

Sewadi on the tractor of one Kan Singh and when they reached

near factory which was situated near the bank of river at that

time Dalpat Singh who was sitting on the trolly fell down, resulting

which he received head injury. The said tractor was driven by one

Chiana Ram and other family members were also sitting in the

tractor. Before they reached the hospital, Dalpat Singh died and

the dead body was taken to their Village Chandhodi. Upon the

aforesaid, an FIR No.47/1988 at the Police Station Rani was

registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. After usual

investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the

petitioner was filed in the Court concerned under Sections 279 and

304A of the IPC.

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 11 witnesses were

examined and 11 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

[2023:RJ-JD:32071] (3 of 5) [CRLR-701/2002]

appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the

accused for offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC vide

judgment dated 07.06.1999 and sentenced him as mentioned

above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an

appeal before the Sessions court which was dismissed vide order

dated 19.08.2022. Both these judgments are under assail before

this court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Kr. Gupta, 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 modified by the learned appellate court, but

at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the

year 1988. He had remained in jail for seven days in jail after

passing of the judgment by the appellate Court. No other case

has been reported against him. He belongs to a very poor family

and is a weaker person of the society. He was 36 years old at the

time of incident now, he is aged about 71 years and is facing trial

since the year 1988 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 a month

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

[2023:RJ-JD:32071] (4 of 5) [CRLR-701/2002]

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 35 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

of one year imposed upon him 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

07.06.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri,

District Pali in Criminal Case No.192/1988 and the judgment dated

19.08.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali,

District Pali in Criminal Appeal No.7/1999 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

[2023:RJ-JD:32071] (5 of 5) [CRLR-701/2002]

justice. 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J 21-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)