Hans Raj vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:29452)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7122 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29452]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 494/2002

Hans Raj s/o Jaimal Ram, r/o House No.120 Bhambhoo Colony,
Sriganganagar.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.Aditya S. Rathore.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

13/09/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

10.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Sriganganagar in Cr.Appeal No.5/2001 whereby the judgment

dated 20.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Cr.Original Case No.12/1999 was

upheld and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences                               Sentences
under Sections:
279 IPC              3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.

304-A IPC 2 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

[2023:RJ-JD:29452] (2 of 4) [CRLR-494/2002]

From the perusal of the record of the case file, it is evident

that on 07.10.1998, at about 8:30 am, the complainant, his

mother Paro Bai, elder brother Pokarram, his wife Mathrabai left

for Ganganagar on feet. The complainant and his family members

plying in a private bus from 3LC Bus Stand, reached Padampur at

10 am. At Padampur Bus Stand, a Jeep heading towards

Ganganagar stopped and the driver of the Jeep i.e. the petitioner

called for people who wanted to go to Ganganagar. Upon which,

the complainant and his family members plied in the Jeep along

with 3-4 other passengers. Around 11 am, the Jeep which was

being driven by the petitioner in high speed was hit from by

behind by a roadways bus. The passengers (complainant' brother

Pokarram and wife Mathrabai and one passenger who had boarded

the Jeep from Rattewala) sitting at the behind in the Jeep, fell off,

sustained injuries and died on the spot. The petitioner was tried

for the offences alleged against him, by competent criminal court

and convicted vide judgment dated 20.10.2000, which came to be

upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated 10.7.2002.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 16.7.2002 passed in

S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application

No.92/2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1999. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

[2023:RJ-JD:29452] (3 of 4) [CRLR-494/2002]

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner 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 since 2002.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2002.

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 sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

[2023:RJ-JD:29452] (4 of 4) [CRLR-494/2002]

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.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the

sentences awarded to him are 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 /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.7

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)