Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Iqbal Mohd.@ Ibrahim vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8732) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8732]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 623/2006
Iqbal Mohd.@ Ibrahim S/o Shri Mohd. Hussain, by caste
Musalaman, R/o Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/02/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 20.06.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal
Appeal No.26/2005 (66/2005) whereby the learned appellate
Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur, in Regular Criminal Case
No.21/2003 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted &
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI ----
Sec. 337 IPC 4 months' SI ----
Sec. 338 IPC 1 Year's SI ----
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, three months'
S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:8732] (2 of 5) [CRLR-623/2006]
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 11.07.1999
complainant Kailashchand gave a report at to the effect that on
11.07.1999 at about 7.15 P.M. when he went to his village
Karanpur in Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-27-P-2657. In the
said jeep total 10-12 passengers were present. When the jeep
reached at Debari Petrol Pump then the same driven by the
petitioner rashly and negligently and the jeep has overturned. Due
to which, few of the passengers were received injuries and out of
which one passenger was succumbed to injuries. On this report,
the FIR was lodged 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 eleven 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 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC vide
judgment dated 04.05.2005 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
[2025:RJ-JD:8732] (3 of 5) [CRLR-623/2006]
appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, which
was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2006. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Nahar, 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 1999. He had remained in jail for sixteen 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 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 sixteen 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:8732] (4 of 5) [CRLR-623/2006]
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
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 04.05.2005
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Udaipur, in Regular Criminal Case No.21/2003 and the judgment
dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 (66/2005) 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8732] (5 of 5) [CRLR-623/2006]
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
16-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
