Suresh Kumar vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:29961)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7123 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29961]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2002

Suresh Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, B/c Brahmin, R/o Badi Beri,
Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


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



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

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

1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana, District Nagaur vide

judgment dated 14.09.2000 passed in Criminal Original Case

No.214/1998 in the following terms :-

Offence for which convicted Sentence, fine and default sentence Section 279 IPC 3 months' S.I., fine of Rs.500/-, default sentence one month's S.I.

Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I., fine of Rs.5,000/-, default sentence three months' S.I.

Criminal Appeal No.15/2000 was filed by the petitioner

challenging the aforesaid judgment, before the learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge Didwana, District Nagaur, who vide

judgment dated 14.06.2002 dismissed the appeal and affirmed

the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved

by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has preferred the

[2023:RJ-JD:29961] (2 of 5) [CRLR-452/2002]

instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401

of the Cr.P.C.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, briefly stated the facts relevant

and essential for disposal of the instant revision petition are that

on 23.09.1998, Gopa Ram S/o Boduram submitted a written

report at the RAC Maulasar, District Nagaur to the effect that on

that today at about 4:30 p.m. when his son Banshi, aged 6 years,

while returning home from bus stand, a Jeep No.RJ-19-1C0197

came rashly and negligently and hit his son resulting which he

died at the spot. The accident took place due to the rash and

negligent driving of the jeep. The driver of the said vehicle fled

away. Bhagirath and Parmeshwar were present on the spot at the

time of incident. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR

No.134/1998 came to be registered at the Police Station Maulasar

and the investigation commenced. After usual investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the

offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC in the court of the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana, District Nagaur.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner and other accused persons and upon denial of guilt by

them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the

prosecution in order to prove the offences examined as many as 9

witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Thereafter, an explanation

was sought from the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then,

after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

[2023:RJ-JD:29961] (3 of 5) [CRLR-452/2002]

evidence placed on record, learned trial court convicted and

sentenced the petitioner as stated above vide judgment dated

14.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the

petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned

appellate court vide judgment dated 14.06.2002. Hence, this

revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for

the petitioner does not wish to press the present revision petition

in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned

trial court and preferred to make submission on the point of

sentence only. He submits that the petitioner is a poor and

indigent person. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It

was his first case. No adverse remark has been passed over his

conduct except the impugned judgment. He is facing trial since

the year 1998 and he has languished in jail for about one month

after passing of the judgment by the appellate court, therefore,

the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that

it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and

he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has

remained behind the bars for some time.

6. 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

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

[2023:RJ-JD:29961] (4 of 5) [CRLR-452/2002]

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is true that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for

some time during trial and presently he is in judicial custody after

passing of the judgment by the appellate court. The incident is of

the year 1998. The petitioner was 25 years of age at that time

and presently he is 53 years of age. He has not been shown to be

indulged in any other criminal case except this one. 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 considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal

antecedents, his status in the society and 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 appellant has already undergone till date.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2000

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Didwana, District Nagaur in Criminal Original Case No.214/1998

as well as the judgment of appeal dated 14.06.2002 passed by the

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Didwana, District

Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2000 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

[2023:RJ-JD:29961] (5 of 5) [CRLR-452/2002]

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part.

10. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

11. Records of both the Courts below be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 20-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)