Rajasthan High Court

Brijesh Kumar vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:35269) on 21 August, 2024

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:35269]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 770/2005

Brijesh Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, R/o Patoda, Police Station
Mahavirji, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. HS Bikarwar
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakad, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

                            Judgment / Order

21/08/2024

1. Challenge in the present criminal revision petition filed

by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section

401 Cr.P.C. has been made to the judgment of the conviction and

sentence dated 19.03.2005 passed by the Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Bharatpur (for short the 'trial

Court') in Criminal Case No. 321/2003 (State of Rajasthan Vs.

Brijesh KUmar) whereby the learned trial Court convicted the

accused- petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279

IPC to six months simple imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 500/-

and in additional 15 days simple imprisonment and for the offence

punishable under Section 304A IPC to one year simple

imprisonment, Rs. 3000/- as a fine and in default of payment of

fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment, which

has been affirmed on vide judgment dated 29.07.2005 passed by

the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast

[2024:RJ-JP:35269] (2 of 6) [CRLR-770/2005]

Track) No.4, Bharatpur (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal

Appeal No. 20/2005 (Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan).

2. Brief facts of the present case are, that the

complainant- Man Singh S/o Raghuvir Singh R/o Gram Nagla

Ghasota lodged a written report (Ex.P.4) at police station Sewar

(Bharatpur) on 14.07.2003 alleging therein that on 13.07.2003 at

about 6-7 pm (complainant) and Sovaran Singh were coming and

bringing bricks from Hantra to in Tractor trolly and they were

driving the tractor on National Highway near Ludhawai in front of

temple. Then a Marshal Jeep came behind him speedily and hit the

tractor trolly and on account of it, Sovaran fell down and on road

and came under the trolly and died on spot.

On this report, the police lodged an F.I.R. vide No.

246/2003 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A IPC and

investigation was commenced.

3. After completion of the investigation the police

submitted charge sheet against the accused- petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304 IPC

4. Trial Court after taking cognizance against the accused-

petitioner for the aforesaid offences, read over the substances of

charges to him. The accused- petitioner did not plead guilty and

claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined six

witnesses and exhibited certain documents thereafter the

statement of the accused- petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

was recorded. In defence the accused- petitioner did not produce

any evidence.

[2024:RJ-JP:35269] (3 of 6) [CRLR-770/2005]

6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.03.2005

convicted and sentence the accused- petitioner for the offences as

mentioned above.

7. The accused- petitioner aggrieved with impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2005, preferred

criminal appeal before learned Appellate Court. The learned

Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 29.07.2005 has affirmed

the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated

19.03.2005 passed by the trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner submits

that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was

suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order

dated 20.09.2005. Counsel for the accused- petitioner submits

that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one

month twenty days. Counsel further submits that the alleged

incident is of 13.07.2003 and since then the accused- petitioner is

facing mental agony and harassment. Counsel makes only a

limited prayer that without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of

sentence already undergone by him.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner.

10. Heard. Perused the record.

11. Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Puttaswamy vs. State

of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623),

wherein the accused person was convicted for committing offence

punishable under Secs. 279 and 304A IPC, reduced the sentence

[2024:RJ-JP:35269] (4 of 6) [CRLR-770/2005]

to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs.

2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7

years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor.

12. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

(Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022),

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts &

circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for

offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute,

observed as under:-

"43.............we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said

-"The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future". One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from

hereinabove, that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz

(supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice,

reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would

be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case

at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to

the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special

acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on

the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit

case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the

sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them.

[2024:RJ-JP:35269] (5 of 6) [CRLR-770/2005]

13. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,

Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2

SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC

678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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..."

14. The present matter pertains to an incident which

occurred in year 2003 and this revision petition has been pending

since year 2005.

15. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of

the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent

laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly,

while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the

offence(s) under Sections 279 & 304A I.P.C., the sentence

awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is reduced to the period

already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody,

thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged

accordingly.

[2024:RJ-JP:35269] (6 of 6) [CRLR-770/2005]

16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

DIVYA SAINI /16