Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurmeet Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24712) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:24712]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 503/2002
Gurmeet Singh son of Sh. Preetam Singh, Resident of
Mohanpura, Tehsil and District Sri-Ganganagar, at present Driver
R.S.R.T.C. Depot, Sri-Ganganagar.
(At present lodged in District Jail Sri-Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/05/2024
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 10.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.6/2001 whereby
the judgment dated 20.10.2000 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Original
Case No.12/1999 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced as below:
Conviction for Sentences
offences under
Sections:
279 IPC 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further under undergo 15 days'
simple imprisonment.
304-A IPC 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further under undergo one month's
simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
[2024:RJ-JD:24712] (2 of 5) [CRLR-503/2002]
2. A revision petition bearing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
494/2002 preferred on behalf of the co-accused Hans Raj s/o
Jaimal Ram, has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023 while affirming the
judgment of conviction but reducing the order of sentence.
The said order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court is
being reproduced herein below:
"This criminal revision petition under Section
397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against
the judgment dated 10.7.2002 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in
Crimainal Appeal No.5/2001 whereby the judgment
dated 20.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Cr.Original
Case No.12/1999 was upheld and the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced as below:
Conviction for Sentences
offences
under
Sections:
279 IPC 3 months' rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default
of payment of fine, to further under
undergo 15 days' simple
imprisonment.
304-A IPC 2 year's rigorous imprisonment and
a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further under
undergo one month's simple
imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
From the perusal of the record of the case file, it
is evident that on 07.10.1998, at about 8:30 am, the
complainant, his mother Paro Bai, elder brother
Pokarram, his wife Mathrabai left for Ganganagar on
feet. The complainant and his family members plying
in a private bus from 3LC Bus Stand, reached
Padampur at 10 am. At Padampur Bus Stand, a Jeep
[2024:RJ-JD:24712] (3 of 5) [CRLR-503/2002]
heading towards Ganganagar stopped and the driver
of the Jeep i.e. the petitioner called for people who
wanted to go to Ganganagar. Upon which, the
complainant and his family members plied in the Jeep
along with 3-4 other passengers. Around 11 am, the
Jeep which was being driven by the petitioner in high
speed was hit from by behind by a roadways bus. The
passengers (complainant' brother Pokarram and wife
Mathrabai and one passenger who had boarded the
Jeep from Rattewala) sitting at the behind in the Jeep,
fell off, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The
petitioner was tried for the offences alleged against
him, by competent criminal court and convicted vide
judgment dated 20.10.2000, which came to be upheld
by appellate court vide judgment dated 10.7.2002.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner
submitted that the sentences so awarded to the
revisionist-petitioner were suspended by this Court,
vide order dated 16.7.2002 passed in S.B. Criminal
Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application
No.92/2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner had undergone detention for some
period and the case is pending against him since
1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted
trial and therefore, without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with
the period of sentences already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
However, he was not in a position to dispute that the
present revision petition is pending since 2002.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is
manifest that the alleged incident happened in the
year 1998 and the present revision petition is pending
adjudication since 2002.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case
of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das
[2024:RJ-JD:24712] (4 of 5) [CRLR-503/2002]
Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to
observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for
sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
courts have evolved certain principles: twin
objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence
would meet the ends of justice depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case and
the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the
offence and all other attendant
circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra)
"... considering the fact that the respondent
had already undergone detention for some
period and the case is pending for a pretty
long time for which he had suffered both
financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been
released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986,
we feel that the ends of justice will be met in
the facts of the case if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone..."
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent
law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on
behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present
revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of
the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and
304-A IPC, the sentences awarded to him are reduced
to the period already undergone by him. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned
court below forthwith."
[2024:RJ-JD:24712] (5 of 5) [CRLR-503/2002]
3. In view of the above and in order to maintain parity and
judicial discipline, the petitioner herein too deserves the same
treatment.
4. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
trial court as well as the judgment in appeal passed by the
learned appellate court are affirmed but the quantum of
sentences awarded by the learned trial court for the offences
under Sections 304-A, and 279 of the IPC, are modified to
the extent that for each count, the sentence he has
undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve
the interest of justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
5. The revision petition is allowed in part. Stay application and
all other pending applications are disposed of.
6. The record be returned to the trial Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
3-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
