Jaibhagwan vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32156)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7716 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32156]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 382/2003

Jaibhagwan s/o Banwari Lal, r/o Radhochhoti, PS Rajgarh,
District Churu.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.Amitabh Acharya.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr.M.S.Bhati, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

27/09/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

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

8.4.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana

in Cr.Appeal No.34/2002 whereby the judgment dated 1.7.2002

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ladnu, District

Nagaur in Cr.Original Case No.258/1999 was upheld and the

petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

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

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment.

304-A IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

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

that on 16.06.1999, around 8:15 am, the petitioner who was

[2023:RJ-JD:32156] (2 of 3) [CRLR-382/2003]

driving Mini Truck bearing registration No.RJ-10-G-0720 in high

speed, recklessly rammed into one Dhannaram who was going

from his dhani towards Bus Stand on foot along the side of the

road. Dhannaram succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The

petitioner was tried for the offences by competent criminal court

and convicted vide judgment dated 1.7.2002, which came to be

upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated 8.4.2003.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 6.2.2014.

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

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 2003.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1999 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

[2023:RJ-JD:32156] (3 of 3) [CRLR-382/2003]

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 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.9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)