Rajasthan High Court

Pappu vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:35268) on 21 August, 2024

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:35268]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005

Pappu S/o Shri Hajari, R/o Ajnoti, Police Station Mantown, Distt.
Sawai Madhopur at present R/o Village- Ukhlana Aligarh, Distt.
Tonk (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. SS Sunda
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 05.04.2003 passed by the Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uniyara, District Tonk (for short the 'trial

Court') in Criminal Case No. 50/1995 (State of Rajasthan Vs.

Pappu & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Court convicted the

accused- petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279

IPC to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the offence punishable under

Section 304A IPC to six months simple imprisonment, Rs. 5000/-

as a fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

three months simple imprisonment and for the offence punishable

under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act to one month simple

imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 250 and in case of default in payment

[2024:RJ-JP:35268] (2 of 6) [CRLR-538/2005]

of fine to further undergo ten days' simple imprisonment, which

has been affirmed vide its judgment dated 08.06.2005 passed by

the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk (for short the 'Appellate

Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 98/2003 (Pappu & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan).

2. Brief facts of the present case are, that on 30.01.1995

at 9.00 pm a written report was lodged by complainant Moji Ram

(PW-1) Son of Harlal at Police Station Aligarh regarding an

incident alleged to have taken place on the same day. It was

alleged in the report that the complainant is resident of Village

Ukhlana and on the date of incident i.e. 30.01.1995 the

complainant and his son namely Nathu Lal were standing near the

Hand Pump. It was further alleged that at that time accused

petitioner- Pappu coming from Aligarh to the village of

complainant on Tractor and he was driving the Tractor in a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It was also alleged that

the petitioner hit his son Nathu Lal by the tractor due to which

Nathu Lal sustained head injury and he was taken to Aligarh

Hospital where he was declared dead.

On the basis of the above mentioned report the police

registered a Criminal Case vide F.I.R. No.12/1995 for offence

under Sections 279 & 304 I.P.C. and investigation commenced.

3. After completion of the investigation the police

submitted charge sheet against the accused- petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section

181 of Motor Vehicle Act.

4. Trial Court after taking cognizance against the accused-

petitioner for the aforesaid offences, read over the substances of

[2024:RJ-JP:35268] (3 of 6) [CRLR-538/2005]

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

claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined nine

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.

6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 05.04.2003

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 05.04.2003, preferred

criminal appeal before learned Appellate Court. The learned

Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 08.06.2005 has affirmed

the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated

05.04.2003 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 17.06.2005. Counsel for the accused- petitioner submits

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

days. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident is of

30.01.1995 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.

[2024:RJ-JP:35268] (4 of 6) [CRLR-538/2005]

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

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

[2024:RJ-JP:35268] (5 of 6) [CRLR-538/2005]

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.

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 1995 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,

[2024:RJ-JP:35268] (6 of 6) [CRLR-538/2005]

while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the

offence(s) under Sections 279 & 304A I.P.C. and Section 181

Motor Vehicle Act. 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.

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

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

DIVYA SAINI /15