Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harnek Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18336) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18336]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 221/2006
Harnek Singh S/o Gurmail Singh, B/c Jatsikh, R/o Balhukmi,
Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
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 16.01.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)Hanumangarh,
(for short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 25.08.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Hanumangarh, in C.R. No.377/1998 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, fifteen days'
S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, Seven days'
S.I.
Sec. 338 IPC 2 Year's RI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
R.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 Years' RI Rs.5,000/- and in default of
[2025:RJ-JD:18336] (2 of 5) [CRLR-221/2006]
payment of fine, five months'
R.I.
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 30.08.1998
complainant Sohan Prakash submitted a report to the concerned
Police Station to the effect that on 29.08.1998 he alongwith his
brother Jaimal Ram, Peela Ram, Sheopat Ram, Khajana Ram and
Driver Krishan were going to Gogameri temple in a Jeep, when
they reached at near Lakhuvali village then a truck bearing
registration No.PB-8-S-1237 drove by the petitioner rashly and
negligently hit their jeep. As a result of this accident, passengers
were injured and out of which Krishan and Khajana Ram were
succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.368/1998 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as seven 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, 337, 338 &
304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 25.08.2000 and sentenced him.
[2025:RJ-JD:18336] (3 of 5) [CRLR-221/2006]
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal
before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Hanumangarh, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 16.01.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Gill, 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 1998. He had
remained in jail for more than seven 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 1998 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 more than seven
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
[2025:RJ-JD:18336] (4 of 5) [CRLR-221/2006]
the rigor for last 27 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
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 25.08.2000
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Hanumangarh, in CR No.377/1998 and the judgment dated
16.01.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.27/2005 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:18336] (5 of 5) [CRLR-221/2006]
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
13-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
