Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brij Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17109) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17109]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 543/2006
Brij Lal S/o Shri Gulaba Ram, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Rasisar,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 27.06.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner, in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court
while acquitting the petitioner for the offence of Motor Vehicles Act
and maintained the conviction dated 18.01.2005 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (J.D.) cum Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bikaner, in Regular Criminal Case No.67/1998 by which the
learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 2 months' SI Rs.100/- and in default of
payment of fine, 7 days' S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 2 months' SI Rs.100/- and in default of
payment of fine, 7 days' S.I.
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 14 days' S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, 15 days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:17109] (2 of 5) [CRLR-543/2006]
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 on 18.02.1998
complainant Moolaram gave the statement during the treatment
to the Police to the effect that complainant alongwith some other
persons went from Jonga Gate to village Palana in a vehicle
bearing registration No.RJ-07-1509 which was driven by petitioner
rashly and negligently and hit the vehicle. In the said accident,
complainant and other persons sustained injuries. During
treatment complainant succumbed to the injuries. Upon the
aforesaid information, 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 & 304-A of IPC and
Sections 146/196 & 134/187 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as ten witnesses were examined and thirteen 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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections 146/196 and
134/187 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 18.01.2005. Aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
[2025:RJ-JD:17109] (3 of 5) [CRLR-543/2006]
Sessions Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated
27.06.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Hardik Gautam, 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 appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that
the incident took place in the year 1998. He had remained in jail
for twenty three 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 has been facing trial since the year 1998 and he
has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may
be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned Dy. Government Advocate 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
twenty three 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 appellate
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 27 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments
[2025:RJ-JD:17109] (4 of 5) [CRLR-543/2006]
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 pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of 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 and sentence dated
18.01.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) cum Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bikaner, in Regular Criminal Case
No.67/1998 and the judgment dated 27.06.2006 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner, in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2006 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned Appellate 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 before the trial court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The
fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be
adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His
bail bonds are cancelled.
[2025:RJ-JD:17109] (5 of 5) [CRLR-543/2006]
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
12-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
