Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8780) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 611/2003
Ram Chandra S/o Pabu Ram R/o Village Borunda, Tehsil Bilara,
District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Joshi
Mr. Kapil Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP 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 15.07.2003 passed
by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in
Criminal Appeal No.34/2003 whereby the learned appellate Court
partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First
Class), Pipar Shahar in Criminal Case No.265/1996 whereby
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.100/- 7 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year's R.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 month's R.I.
Section 337 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.100/- 7 days' S.I.
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:8780] (2 of 4) [CRLR-611/2003]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 10.05.1996,
complainant Amraram submitted a written report at Police Station
Pipar Shahar to the extent that at about 12:30 PM he reached
near Nanan Road and at that time, Bhagirath riding a moped along
with Bhagaram were coming towards Pipar from Nanan. At the
same time, a truck being driven rashly and negligently by the
petitioner coming from Nanan hit the moped due to which
Bhagirath died on the spot and Bhagaram got injured. 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, 337 & 304-A of IPC upon denial
of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 7 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. 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,
337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 17.11.2000. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur which
was partly allowed vide judgment dated 15.07.2003. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
[2025:RJ-JD:8780] (3 of 4) [CRLR-611/2003]
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 1996. He had remained in jail for about 3 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 is facing trial
since the year 1996 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 3 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 courts
below, 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 29 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8780] (4 of 4) [CRLR-611/2003]
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 and sentence dated
15.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.34/2003 & the judgment
dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First
Class) Pipar Shahar in Criminal Case No.265/1996 is affirmed but
the quantum of sentence reduced by the learned appellate 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.
10. The fine amount is maintained. The amount of fine imposed
by the appellate Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner,
then two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
11. The revision petition is allowed in part.
12. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
13. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
2-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
