Mahesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8756)
2025 Latest Caselaw 7141 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7141 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8756) on 12 February, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:8756]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 365/2002

Mahesh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Ji, R/o Prithvipura, Police Station
Jetaran, District Pali.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

12/02/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the

judgment dated 17.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Cr. Appeal No.03/2002 whereby the

judgment dated 18.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Cr. Regular

Case No.265/1996 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted

and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 279 IPC 1 month's R.I. 337 IPC 1 month's S.I. 304-A IPC 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The record of the case file shows that on 09.04.1996, the

complainant - Bhanwar Singh submitted a written report to the

[2025:RJ-JD:8756] (2 of 4) [CRLR-365/2002]

SHO of Police Station Phalodi alleging inter alia that on the same

day when he was returning home along with Raju on their

respective bicycles, the jeep bearing registration No.RJ-14-C-0873

hit them near the Nagore Road intersection. In the aforesaid

accident, the complainant and Raju sustained severe injuries and

were rushed to the nearby hospital for treatment.

On the basis of the report, an FIR was registered at Police

Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections

279, 337 and 304-A IPC and the investigation was commenced.

The investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation

found the driver of the offending jeep to be the present petitioner

and thereafter, arrested him.

After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion of

trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-

petitioner as above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 06.06.2002 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.56/2002. However, this

Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 cancelled the order for

Suspension of Sentences for non-appearance of the counsel for

the peititoner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1996. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

[2025:RJ-JD:8756] (3 of 4) [CRLR-365/2002]

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to him may be

substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by

him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending adjudication

since the year 2002.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1996 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2002.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the

[2025:RJ-JD:8756] (4 of 4) [CRLR-365/2002]

sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner

for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the IPC, the

sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him.