Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar Joshi vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18320) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18320]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 660/2005
Sunil Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Vishav Nath Joshi, By caste Brahmin,
R/o Village Kupra, Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Banswara,
District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Mr. Vibhor Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
09/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 25.07.2005 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge Dungarpur, (for short, "the
appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.8/2000 while rejecting the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.04.2000
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Dungarpur, in
Criminal Regular Case No.419/1997 by which the learned trial
Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:18320] (2 of 4) [CRLR-660/2005]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.09.1997 Police
Station Bicchiwara received an information that a Jeep met with
an accident. Upon arrival at the scene, the Police discovered that
an individual had succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR
was lodged at concerned Police Station, against the petitioner.
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 five 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 exhibited certain documents. 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 & 304-A of IPC vide
judgment dated 11.04.2000 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Judge Dungarpur, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 25.07.2005. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ravindra Kumar, 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 1997. He had remained in jail for about twenty five days
[2025:RJ-JD:18320] (3 of 4) [CRLR-660/2005]
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 1997 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 twenty five
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 28 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:18320] (4 of 4) [CRLR-660/2005]
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 11.04.2000
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Dungarpur, in
Criminal Regular Case No.419/1997 and the judgment dated
25.07.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dungarpur, in
Criminal Appeal No.8/2000 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 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.
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
6-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
