Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Veera Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8731) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8731]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 794/2006
Veera Ram S/o Sh. Khangarji, By Caste Jat, Resident of Bhinmal,
Tehsil- Bhinmal, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, 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 24.08.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore, in
Criminal Appeal No.13/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 27.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Criminal Original Case
No.753/1997 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.100/- 7 Day's S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.100/- 7 Day's' S.I.
Section 3/181 __ __ ___ Rs.200/- 7 Day's S.I.
M.V. Act
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:8731] (2 of 4) [CRLR-794/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 03.09.1997,
complainant Modaram gave a written report to the Police at Police
Station, Bhinmal to the effect that his son Ramesh was standing
outside his house and was hit by a tanker bearing No.GJ-12-T-
6309 being driven by Veeram Ram in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result of which Ramesh Sustained grievous injuries
on his body and head due to which he died on the spot. Upon the
aforesaid information, 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 & 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181
of Motor Vehicle Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 9
witnesses were examined and some 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
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279 & 304A of
IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act vide judgment dated
27.06.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 24.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Ld. Counsel Mr. A.K. Acharya, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt
[2025:RJ-JD:8731] (3 of 4) [CRLR-794/2006]
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 1997. He had
remained in jail for 17 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 28 years old at the time of incident, now he is
aged about 56 years and is facing trial since the year 1997 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 17 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 is facing the rigor
for last 28 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8731] (4 of 4) [CRLR-794/2006]
case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner
has suffered incarceration for some days 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 24.08.2006
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District
Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.13/2006 & the judgment dated
27.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Criminal Case No.753/1997
is 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. Two months' time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
19-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
