Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dulichand vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8728) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1205/2007
Dulichand S/o Shri Sohan Lal, by Caste Ved, R/o Village Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Shanti Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
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 26.10.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, District Bikaner, in Criminal Appeal
No.13/2004 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction
and sentence vide judgment dated 05.07.1999 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha, District Bikaner in Criminal Case
No.157/1994 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 7 days' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 6 months' SI Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 20 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.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.04.1994, Shri
Ummed Singh recorded Parcha Bayan of Shri Prem Chand in a
[2025:RJ-JD:8728] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1205/2007]
Government Hospital, Nokha wherein Prem Chand stated that he along
with some other persons were going to attend a marriage of Santosh
Kumar on 05.04.1994. On the very next day i.e. 06.04.1994, when they
were returning from Sadulsahar to Panchu in the aforesaid Jonga, at
about 09:30 PM, the Jonga bearing registration No.RJ-19C-3317 being
driven by Duli Chand overturned on account of rash and negligent
driving resulting in death of Om Prakash and Akshay Raj and some
other persons sustained injuries. On the basis of Parcha Bayan, the
police registered a case under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC
and commenced the investigation. After completion of the investigation,
the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for
the aforesaid offences. During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined as many as 09 witnesses and submitted certain documents in
support of their case. The accused-petitioner was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha, District
Bikaner after hearing the final arguments of both sides, acquitted the
accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC
and convicted him for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A vide its
judgment and order dated 05.07.1999. Being aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, District Bikaner, whereby the appellate court affirmed the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 26.10.2007.
5. Learned counsel Dr. Shanti 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 learned trial court and upheld
by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that
[2025:RJ-JD:8728] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1205/2007]
the incident took place in the year 1994. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 11 days. 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 23 years in 1994 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 54 years at present and has been facing trial
since the year 1994 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 11 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 one 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8728] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1205/2007]
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
05.07.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha,
District Bikaner in Criminal Case No.157/1994 and the judgment dated
26.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
District Bikaner, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 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
31-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
