Rajasthan High Court
Ghanshyam vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:7777) on 14 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:7777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 561/2001
Ghanshyam S/o Dhansi Ram, R/o Hingota, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa. (presently confined in jail).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Arvind Sharma &
Mr. Rana Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
JUDGMENT
14/02/2024
1. By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C., the petitioner-convict - Ghanshyam has challenged the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2001 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa in
Criminal Appeal No.52/99 whereby the learned appellate court has
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the
judgment dated 28.09.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Sikrai, District Dausa in Criminal Original Case
No.66/94, convicting and sentencing him as below:
Offence u/s. Sentence Fine Default
304-A IPC Two years' S.I. Rs.5,000/- 03 months' S.I.
279 IPC Six months' S.I. Rs.500/- 01 month's S.I.
337 IPC Six months' S.I. Rs.500/- 01 month's S.I.
3/181 M.V. Act NIL Rs.500/- 07 days' S.I.
[2024:RJ-JP:7777] (2 of 5) [CRLR-561/2001]
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
28.02.1994, the complainant submitted a written report at P.S.
Manpur alleging therein that his father was coming from Manpur
crossing and when he reached in front of PWD Chowki, Manpur
Road, Ghanshyam, the petitioner herein while driving a Ford
Tractor in a rash and negligent manner, hit his father Shiv Prasad
from behind, due to which his father sustained injuries on head,
legs and hands. His father was taken to Sikrai Hospital and during
treatment, on 11.03.1994, his father expired.
3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.44/94 was
registered at Police Station Manpur and investigation was
commenced. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the present petitioner for the offences punishable
under Section 279, 337, 338 & 304A IPC and Section 3/181 M.V.
Act.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 11 witnesses and got exhibited 10 documents. After examining
the accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was
also given to him to lead defence evidence. He denied the
prosecution case but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial
court vide judgment dated 28.09.1999, acquitted the accused
petitioner for the offence under Section 338 IPC but convicted and
sentenced him for the offences as mentioned above.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.09.1999, an
appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa. The learned appellate court vide
[2024:RJ-JP:7777] (3 of 5) [CRLR-561/2001]
judgment dated 21.07.2001 dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.1999. Hence
this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently
contends that both the courts below have erred in convicting the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
IPC and Section 3/181 M.V. Act. She further contends that the
learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court did
not appreciate the material available on record in right and correct
perspective and committed perversity in convicting the petitioner.
She also submits that there are several infirmities and
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and
as such, the conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable
and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
8. Her alternative submission is that as the occurrence relates
back to year 1994 and the trial was concluded in the year 1999
and now the petitioner is 59 years of age and the petitioner has
already served the sentence of about eight days out of maximum
sentence of two years simple imprisonment awarded to him, the
substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the
learned courts below have rightly awarded sentence against the
petitioner, which need not be interfered with by this court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders of
sentence.
[2024:RJ-JP:7777] (4 of 5) [CRLR-561/2001]
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the rival submissions so also perused the record. In
this case, the fact of accident has also been corroborated by the
statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Both the courts
below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was rash
and negligent while driving the offending vehicle, which does not
require any interference by this Court.
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. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla
Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 CriLJ 2582
wherein the accused petitioner had undergone a protracted trial
for more than 29 years and looking to the over-all circumstances
specially the fact that the petitioner had suffered persistent agony
from last more than 29 years and he has remained in jail about 18
days, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by
him.
13. In the present case also, the incident relates to the year
1994 and petitioner has so far undergone a period of eight days in
custody so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial
for last 30 years. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances, it
will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
[2024:RJ-JP:7777] (5 of 5) [CRLR-561/2001]
for offence under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC and Section
3/181 of M.V. Act is reduced to the period already undergone
while enhancing the amount of fine appropriately.
14. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner's sentence for the
offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Section
3/181 of M.V. Act is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to
Rs.12,500/- in the following manner:-
Under Section 279 IPC = Rs. 1,000/-
Under Section 337 IPC = Rs. 1,000/-
Under Section 304-A IPC = Rs.10,000
Under Section 3/181 M.V. Act = Rs.500/-
15. The aforesaid amount of fine in total Rs.12,500/- shall be
deposited by the petitioner in the trial court within three months
from the date of this order, and on such deposit, the same shall be
disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Shivprasad. In default of
such deposit within the stipulated period, this revision petition
shall stand dismissed and the petitioner shall be sent to jail to
serve remaining sentence.
16. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail
bonds are discharged.
17. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
2-Nirmala
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
