Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sattar Khan vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:10274) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10274]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 513/2003
Sattar Khan S/o Gullu Khan, B/c Muslim, r/o Swaroopganj, Tehsil
Pindwara, District Sirohi (At present confined in Sub-Jail, Abu
Road).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
28/02/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 18.06.2003 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi
in Criminal Appeal No.14/1997 whereby the learned appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 24.05.1997 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Case No.232/1993
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, 7 days' SI
Sec. 304A IPC 1 year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, 1 month's SI
[2024:RJ-JD:10274] (2 of 4) [CRLR-513/2003]
2. Both 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 30.03.1993,
complainant Veeraram gave a written report to SHO, PS Rohira to
the effect that a truck bearing No.RJ-24-G-0098 came in a rash
and negligent manner and hit one Gajari. As a result of which,
Gajari died on the spot. The said truck was being driven by the
accused petitioner Sattar Khan. 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, 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as 13 witnesses were examined and 13 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, 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 24.05.1997 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 dated 18.06.2003.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Surendra Surana, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
[2024:RJ-JD:10274] (3 of 4) [CRLR-513/2003]
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 1993. He had remained in jail for nineteen 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 28 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 59 years and is
facing trial since the year 1993 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 nineteen
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 31 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,
[2024:RJ-JD:10274] (4 of 4) [CRLR-513/2003]
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
24.05.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara,
District Sirohi in Criminal Case No.232/1993 and the judgment
dated 18.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.14/1997
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 hereby maintained. Three
months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In
default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's
simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by
the petitioner shall be adjusted. 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
23-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
