Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Guru Maya Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18321) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18321]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1068/2002
Guru Maya Singh S/o Mukhtar Singh, R/o Dhoriya Police Station,
Nisar, Distt. Amritsar
[Lodged in Distt. Jail Pali]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neeta Chhanghani
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 30.11.2002 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), District Pali, in Criminal Appeal
No.78/2002 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Pali, in Original
Criminal Case No.171/1997 by which the learned trial court convicted
and 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, 1 months' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' RI Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 6 months' 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, Constable Manak Ram
lodged a written report at concerned Police Station alleging that on
[2025:RJ-JD:18321] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1068/2002]
25.09.1997, a truck bearing registration No.MH 04 H 2706 being driven
in a rash and negligent manner struck a moped (M-80) on which three
individuals were riding sustained severe injuries and died later on. 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 his 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 18.12.2000. Being aggrieved by
the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Session
Judge (Fast Track), District Pali, whereby the appellate court dismissed
the appeal vide judgment dated 30.11.2002.
5. Learned counsel Ms. Neeta Chhanghani, 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. The accused-
petitioner had remained in judicial custody for about nine days out of
total sentence of two year rigorous imprisonment. 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 21 years in 1997 at the time of incident and the accused-
[2025:RJ-JD:18321] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1068/2002]
petitioner is aged about 49 years at present and 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 nine 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. 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 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 18.12.2000 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Pali, in Original
Criminal Case No.171/1997 and the judgment dated 30.11.2002 passed
[2025:RJ-JD:18321] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1068/2002]
by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), District Pali, in
Criminal Appeal No.78/2002 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 imposed by the trial court
is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if
not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months' time is
granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the trial
court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one
month's simple imprisonment. 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
2-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
