Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8779) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8779]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 946/2005
Rama Ram S/o Punama Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Konara,
District Barmer. (Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Choudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Ms. Hemlata Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
12/02/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 24.10.2005 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barmer in
Criminal Appeal No.58/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 08.01.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barmer, in Criminal Case No.281/1999 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 304A IPC 2 years RI and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 2 months SI
Sec.132/187 Fine of Rs.300/- & in default of payment of fine
MV Act to undergo 7 days SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:8779] (2 of 4) [CRLR-946/2005]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 28.06.1999,
complainant Sata Ram submitted a written report at Police Station
Chautan to the effect that when his niece Devki was standing
outside the house, a truck bearing No.RSK-8451 came in a rash
and negligent manner and hit her. As a result of which, his niece
died on the spot. The said truck was being driven by the accused-
petitioner. Upon the aforesaid report, 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, 304A IPC and Section 132/187 of
MV Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the
trial. During the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were
examined. 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, 304A IPC & Section 132/187 of MV Act vide
judgment dated 08.01.2003 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 24.10.2005. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8779] (3 of 4) [CRLR-946/2005]
implores that the incident took place in the year 1999. He had
remained in jail for about one month & twenty-two 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 was 30 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 56 years and has
been facing trial since the year 1999 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 one month
& twenty-two 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 26 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8779] (4 of 4) [CRLR-946/2005]
petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days 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 08.01.2003
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in
Criminal Case No.281/1999 and the judgment dated 24.10.2005
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in
Criminal Appeal No.58/2005 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. Two months' time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if
any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the
petitioner fails deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo the
default sentence. 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
12-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
