Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18364) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18364]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 695/2007
Bheru Lal S/o Shri Vaga Ji, by caste Rebari, R/o Rebarion Ki
Dhani, Ishwal, Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, 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 05.07.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, (for
short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 while
rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
05.07.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Rajsamand, in Criminal Case No.78/2006 by which the learned
trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month's SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, fifteen days'
S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.5,000/- 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.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 04.07.2001
complainant Chandra Shekhar submitted a report at Police Station
Rajnagar, to the effect that on the same day at about 10.30 A.M.
[2025:RJ-JD:18364] (2 of 4) [CRLR-695/2007]
he went to Rajnagar in his Jeep alongwith Bhanwar Lal, when they
reached at Mundel where a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-
30-1-M-5923, which was driven by Shanker Lal met with an
accident with truck bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-3724 driven
by the petitioner rashly and negligently. In the said accident,
Shanker Lal was 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 337, 279 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as fifteen 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 05.07.2006 and sentenced him.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal
before the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand, which
was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.07.2007. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Bheru Lal Choudhary, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:18364] (3 of 4) [CRLR-695/2007]
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 2001. He had remained in jail for about two months 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 2001 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 two months
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 24 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
[2025:RJ-JD:18364] (4 of 4) [CRLR-695/2007]
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 dated 05.07.2006
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajsamand, in
Criminal Case No.78/2006 and the judgment dated 05.07.2007
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 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. Three 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
26-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
