Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:9020) on 21 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:9020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2004
Gopal S/o Magan Lal, B/c Aanjana, R/o Basad, PS Pratapgarh,
District Chittorgarh.
(At present lodged at Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/02/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 14.09.2004 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal
No.28/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2003
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.105/1992 by which the learned
trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 10 days' SI
[2024:RJ-JD:9020] (2 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
Sec. 304A IPC 1 year's SI Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 3 months' SI
Sec. 134/187 MV --- Rs.200/- and in default of
Act payment of fine, 10 days' SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.04.1992 at
about 4:00 p.m., complainant Kesia Meena gave an oral report to
the Police at Government Hospital, Pratapgarh to the effect that
after loading stones in the Tractor bearing No.RNM 1547, he along
with one Rakma was returning to Pratapgarh. The said tractor was
being driven by petitioner Gopal. When they reached near Imli Bus
Stand, some passengers sat in the trolley of the tractor and
thereafter, the petitioner drove the tractor rashly and negligently
and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the tractor-
trolley overturned and the persons sitting in the trolley sustained
severe injuries. Upon the aforesaid oral report, an FIR was
registered under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. After usual
investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the
petitioner in the Court concerned under Sections 279, 337, 338,
304A of IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were
examined and 28 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing
[2024:RJ-JD:9020] (3 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the
accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC
and Section 134/187 of MV Act vide judgment dated 20.11.2003
and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
14.09.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Purohit, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 1992. He had remained in jail for eight days after passing of
the judgment by the appellate Court. No other case has been
reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and
belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 26 years old
at the time of incident now, he is aged about 58 years and is
facing trial since the year 1992 and he has languished in jail for
some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his
sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about eight days
and except the present one no other case has been registered
against him.
[2024:RJ-JD:9020] (4 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court,
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the
petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor
for last 32 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.
State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case,
age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the
case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner
has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum sentence
imposed upon him is of one year as well as the fact that he faced
financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court
deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of
imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.105/1992 and the
judgment dated 14.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Cases), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/2004 are affirmed
but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is
modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till
date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of
[2024:RJ-JD:9020] (5 of 5) [CRLR-642/2004]
justice. The fine amount is also waived. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
34-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
