Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Navabudin vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8725) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8725]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 689/2007
Navabudin S/o Shri Moti Khan, by caste Shekh Musalman, R/o
Kalkaji Road, Bhatkada, Sirohi. (Presently lodged in District Jail,
Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
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 19.07.2007 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge Jalore, in Criminal Appeal
No.23/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
28.03.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jalore, in Criminal Case No.1126/2002 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. 304A IPC 1 Year's SI ----
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:8725] (2 of 4) [CRLR-689/2007]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 09.12.2002 at
about 1.50 P.M. complainant Chhail Singh gave a written report to
Police Statin Bagra, to the effect that at about 1.00 p.m. he
alongwith Chandra Kanwar and Akash Kanwar reached at Aakoli
Chhoti river then a car bearing registration No.RJ-24-T-0942
driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and hit Chandra
Kanwar. During the treatment, Chandra Kanwar succumbed to
injuries. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as nine 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated
28.03.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
19.07.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8725] (3 of 4) [CRLR-689/2007]
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 2002. He had remained in jail for one month and twenty 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 2002 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 one month and
twenty 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 23 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:8725] (4 of 4) [CRLR-689/2007]
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of 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 sentence to the term
of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till
date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2006
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalore, in
Criminal Case No.1126/2002 and the judgment dated 19.07.2007
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Criminal Appeal
No.23/2006 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 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
24-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
