Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24717) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24717]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 261/2002
Om Prakash S/o Shri Ramchandra Ji Yadav, R/o 21, Sainikpuri,
Digari, District Jodhpur (Presently lodged in Central Jail,
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.L. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Ms. Kamla Goswami
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/05/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 09.04.2002 passed by
learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.21/2000
by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment dated 18.11.1999 passed by the learned
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur, (hereinafter referred
to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.228/1998, whereby, the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner
as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC One month's Fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
SI payment of fine, 15 days' S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC Six months' Fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
S.I. default of payment of fine, one
month's S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2024:RJ-JD:24717] (2 of 4) [CRLR-261/2002]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on on 19.03.1998
complainant Bhopalram gave a written report at Police Station
Udaimandir, to the effect that he went to his village Pabupura from
Jodhpur, at about 3.00 P.M. when he reached at Swej Farm Chouraha
then he saw that Nathuram went on his bicycle and suddenly a truck
of Municipal Council bearing registration No.RJ-19-G-7874 driven by
Om Prakash (present petitioner) very rashly and negligently hit
Nathuram, due to which Nathuram died. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial,
as many as ten witnesses were examined and various 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 and
304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 18.11.1999 and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge No.3, Jodhpur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
09.04.2002. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court
in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. R.L. Bishnoi, 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
[2024:RJ-JD:24717] (3 of 4) [CRLR-261/2002]
upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1998. He has
remained in jail for eighteen 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 47 years old at the time of incident, now, he
is aged about 73 years and is facing trial since the year 1998 and he
has languished in jail for some days, 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 eighteen 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 25
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
[2024:RJ-JD:24717] (4 of 4) [CRLR-261/2002]
pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration
for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of
six months 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
18.11.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
No.4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.228/1998 and the judgment dated
09.04.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge
No.3, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.21/2000 is 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. However, the
amount of fine passed by the learned trial Court is hereby
maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergone one month's simple imprisonment. 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
3-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
