Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17143) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17143]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 418/2007
Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Bhoi, R/o Gadi, District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Beniwal with
Mr. Amit Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash 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 05.05.2007 passed
by the learned Session Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal
No.35/1999 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated
25.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sagwada in Case No.294/1993 by which the learned
trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, complainant Vasudev
gave an oral information at concerned Police Station upon receiving
[2025:RJ-JD:17143] (2 of 4) [CRLR-418/2007]
information from one Shri Dayalal Vyas, alleging that an accident has
taken place by a jeep bearing registration No.RJ 03 C 0263, being
driven by Mahesh Kumar as a result of which, Jagdish has died. On the
basis of this report, the police registered a case and commenced the
investigation and after completion of investigation, the police filed the
chargesheet. The learned trial court framed charges against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. During
the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses
and submitted certain documents in support of their case. The accused-
petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied
the allegations against him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections
279 and 304-A of IPC vide order dated 25.10.1999. Being aggrieved by
the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Session Judge,
Dungarpur, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 05.05.2007.
5. Learned counsel Mr. D.S. Beniwal, 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 upheld by
the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the
incident took place in the year 1993. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about thirteen days out of total
sentence of two years. No other case has been reported against him. He
hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the
society. The accused-petitioner was aged about 23 years in 1993 at the
time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about 55 years at
[2025:RJ-JD:17143] (3 of 4) [CRLR-418/2007]
present and has been 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 thirteen 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 courts below, 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is two
years 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 25.10.1999 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwada in Criminal
Case No.294/1993 and the judgment dated 05.05.2007 passed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:17143] (4 of 4) [CRLR-418/2007]
learned Session Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.35/1999 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 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
20-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
