Rajasthan High Court
Chandu @ Chandra Prakash vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:9297) on 14 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:9297]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1303/2003
Chandu @ Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal, R/o Ghughara
Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vandana Sharma
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 - Chandu @ Chandra Prakash is
challenging the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by
the Special Judge (SC/ST) Cases, Ajmer, in Criminal Appeal
No.136/2003, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment
dated 02.09.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3,
Ajmer in Criminal Case No.3021/2001, whereby the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced as under:
Offence u/s. Sentence Fine Default Sentence
304-A IPC One year's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 02 months' S.I.
279 IPC One month's S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
13.08.2001, the complainant - Mukesh Kumar submitted a written
report at P.S. Civil Lines, Ajmer alleging inter-alia that on
[2024:RJ-JP:9297] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1303/2003]
03.08.2001, an accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner herein, who was driving the
offending vehicle Vikram Auto Rickshaw bearing No.RJ-01-P-3850
in which, Basant (brother of the complainant) expired.
3. On the basis of the above report, FIR (No.184/2001) was
registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for offences under
Sections 279 and 304A IPC and police started investigation. On
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
present petitioner.
4. On conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 02.09.2003, the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences under
Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, No.3, Ajmer.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
02.09.2003, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer. The learned
appellate court vide judgment dated 27.11.2003 dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 02.09.2003. 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 & 304-A of IPC. 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
[2024:RJ-JP:9297] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1303/2003]
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 2001 and the trial was concluded in the year 2003
and now the petitioner is 50 years of age and the petitioner has
already served the sentence of about three months and eleven
days out of maximum sentence of one year's 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.
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
[2024:RJ-JP:9297] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1303/2003]
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
2001 and petitioner has so far undergone a period of 03 months
and 11 days in custody so also suffered the agony and trauma of
protracted trial for last 23 years. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded
by the trial court for offences under Sections 279 & 304A IPC and
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 & 304-A IPC is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone. However, the amount of fine as
awarded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated
02.09.2003 for offence under Section 304A IPC is enhanced to
Rs.6000/-. The fine amount of Rs.500/- as imposed by the trial
[2024:RJ-JP:9297] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1303/2003]
court while convicting the accused petitioner for offence under
Section 279 of IPC shall remain intact.
15. The aforesaid amount of fine in total Rs.6,500/- 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 Basant. 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 record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
-Nirmala/5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
