Rajasthan High Court
Kalu Lal vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:11661) on 6 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:11661]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 586/2005
Kalu Lal S/o Shri Ram Bharose, R/o Bargu, Police Station
Simalya, District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
JUDGMENT
06/03/2024
1. By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C., the petitioner-convict - Kalu Lal has challenged the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2005 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi (Raj.)
in Criminal Appeal No.78/2001 whereby the learned appellate
court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2001 passed
by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Talera, District Bundi in Criminal Regular Case No.587/96,
convicting and sentencing him as below:
Offence Sentence Fine Default Sentence
304-A IPC One year's S.I. Rs.500/- 01 month's S.I.
279 IPC One month's S.I. -- --
337 IPC Three months' S.I. -- --
338 IPC Six months' S.I. -- --
[2024:RJ-JP:11661] (2 of 5) [CRLR-586/2005]
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
08.05.1993, the complainant Hemraj submitted a written report at
P.S. Talera alleging therein that on 08.05.1993, an accident was
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner
herein who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. tractor No.RRO
7399 in which Ramprasad expired.
3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.81/93 was
registered at Police Station Talera 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.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses and got exhibited 19 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 30.10.2001, convicted and sentenced
him for the offences as mentioned above.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2001, an
appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi (Raj.). The learned appellate court
vide judgment dated 16.06.2005 dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
30.10.2001. Hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently
contends that both the courts below have erred in convicting the
[2024:RJ-JP:11661] (3 of 5) [CRLR-586/2005]
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
IPC. Act. He 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. He 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. His alternative submission is that as the occurrence relates
back to year 1993 and the trial was concluded in the year 2001
and now the petitioner is 50 years of age and the petitioner has
already served the sentence of about three months and
twenty-nine days out of maximum sentence of one year 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
[2024:RJ-JP:11661] (4 of 5) [CRLR-586/2005]
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. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/-, where the accused caused death of Ram
Prasad 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
1993 and petitioner has so far undergone a period of three
months and twenty-nine 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 for offence under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC 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
[2024:RJ-JP:11661] (5 of 5) [CRLR-586/2005]
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine
amount of Rs.500/- as awarded by the learned trial court while
convicting the accused petitioner for offence under Section 304A
IPC is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-.
15. The aforesaid amount of fine in total Rs.5,000/- 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. 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
DEEPA RANI-17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
