Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bljinder Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:10277) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10277]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 277/2002
Bljinder Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, B/c Jattsikh, R/o Jodkiya,
Tehsil and District Hanumangarh. (At present lodged in Sub-Jail,
Srikaranpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/02/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 11.04.2002 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District
Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.(36/93) 45/1997 whereby
the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 23.06.1993 passed by the learned
Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur in Criminal
Case No.135/1990 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month ---
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months ---
Sec. 304A IPC 1 year's RI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 1 month's SI
[2024:RJ-JD:10277] (2 of 4) [CRLR-277/2002]
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 11.05.1990,
complainant Harvindra Singh filed a complaint to the effect that
when he was working in his shop, a truck bearing No.RNK 627
came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Jeep No.RSC
1491 parked in front of his shop. Due to which, the said jeep
rammed into the shop of the complainant and the aforesaid truck
also got overturned upon one Lalit Kumar and resultantly, Lalit
Kumar died. The said truck was being driven by the accused
petitioner Baljinder Singh. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was
registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and 12 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 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, 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 23.06.1993
and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment
[2024:RJ-JD:10277] (3 of 4) [CRLR-277/2002]
dated 11.04.2002. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma, 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 1990. He had remained in jail for seventeen 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 32 years old
at the time of incident now, he is aged about 66 years and is
facing trial since the year 1990 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 seventeen
days and except the present one no other case has been
registered against him.
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 34 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by
[2024:RJ-JD:10277] (4 of 4) [CRLR-277/2002]
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
23.06.1993 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Padampur in Criminal Case No.135/1990 and the
judgment dated 11.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Criminal
Appeal No.36/93 (45/1997) 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 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
2-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
