Kishore Singh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:29445)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7124 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29445]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 396/2002

Kishore Singh s/o Savji @ Shiv Ji, r/o Raithal, P.S. Ahore, District
Jalore.
                                                                    ----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

5.6.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track), Jalore in Cr.Appeal No.132/2002 (120/97) whereby the

judgment dated 18.11.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jalore in Cr.Original Case No.7/1996 was upheld and

the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences                               Sentences
under Sections:
297 IPC              6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

337 IPC 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

338 IPC 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

[2023:RJ-JD:29445] (2 of 4) [CRLR-396/2002]

304-A IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment.

134/187 15 days' simple imprisonment. M.V.Act All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

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

that on 30.12.1995, around 8 am, the petitioner who was on the

wheel of the bus bearing registration No.GJ-5Z-4444, due to

negligent and rash driving, lost control over the vehicle and

collided with the cycles ridden by injured- Piya, who sustained

head injury in the accident. The injured while undergoing

treatment at a hospital, passed away. The petitioner was tried for

the offences by competent criminal court and convicted vide

judgment dated 18.11.1997, which came to be upheld by

appellate court vide judgment dated 5.6.2002.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 11.6.2002 passed in

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

No.62/2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1996. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of

sentences already undergone by him.

[2023:RJ-JD:29445] (3 of 4) [CRLR-396/2002]

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 it manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1995 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..."

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, 337, 338, 304-A

[2023:RJ-JD:29445] (4 of 4) [CRLR-396/2002]

IPC and 134/187 of M.V.Act , 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.5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)