Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17183) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (1 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
AHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 575/2007
Devi Lal S/o Shri Kamji Damore Meena, R/o Vagdari-Fala-Upala,
Police Station-Sadar Dungarpur, District-Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 22.06.2007 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.14/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.02.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur, in Regular Criminal Case No.28/2003 by which the
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 & 337 3 months SI and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI
Sec. 304A IPC 1 year SI and fine of Rs.100/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's SI
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (2 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
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 complainant Babulal
Aamliya Meena submitted a written report at Police Station
Bichhiwara to the effect that on 21.11.2002, he along with his
family members were going to Ramsagra in a Truck bearing No.RJJ
4757. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck driver,
the truck overturned. As a result of which, his father Kanka died
on the spot. The said truck was being driven by the accused-
petitioner. 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, 338 & 304A IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and certain
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, 338 & 304A vide judgment
dated 12.02.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal
before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 22.06.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (3 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 2002. The
appellant had remained in jail for about seven 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 46 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 69 years and has
been facing trial since the year 2003 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 seven 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 22 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
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (4 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
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 incarceration for some days 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 dated 12.02.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.28/2003 and the judgment
dated 22.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.14/2004 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. Two months' time
is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The
fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be
adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine amount, he shall
undergo the default sentence. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not 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
[2025:RJ-JD:17183] (5 of 5) [CRLR-575/2007]
22-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
