Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladu Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8992) on 13 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 719/2006
Ladu Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal, by caste Khatik, R/o Mangrop, Police
Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma, Amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
13/02/2025
Earlier on 28.08.2024 and 12.02.2025 no one has appeared on
behalf of the petitioner. Today even in the second round also, no one
has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report from which it is
found that the petitioner is still alive. Report submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.
Since on various occasion, no one has appeared on behalf of
the petitioner and the petitioner is still alive, therefore, it is in the
interest of justice that learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma is hereby
appointed as Amicus curiae in this case. He shall be paid his
remuneration by the Legal Services Authority as per Legal Aid
Scheme.
Heard on the revision petition.
By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 05.08.2006 passed
[2025:RJ-JD:8992] (2 of 5) [CRLR-719/2006]
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara,
in Criminal Appeal No.40/2006 whereby the learned appellate
Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Criminal Regular Case No.85/2000
by which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
The gist of the prosecution story is that on 10.02.2000
complainant Sanjay Kumar Lodged a report at concerned Police
Station to the effect that on 10.02.2000 at about 1.30 P.M. when
he alongwith Laxman Jat and Laxman Acharya were coming from
temple. When they reached at Circle of village Harni then a Jeep
bearing registration No.RJ-06-P-0834 driven by petitioner rashly
and negligently and hit the petitioner. 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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:8992] (3 of 5) [CRLR-719/2006]
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
24.11.2005 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 05.08.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
Learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma, Amicus Curiae,
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 2000. He had remained in jail for more than one
month 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 2000 and he has languished in
jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in
reducing his sentence.
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 more than one
[2025:RJ-JD:8992] (4 of 5) [CRLR-719/2006]
month and except the present one no other case has been
registered against him.
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.
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 25 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 six months 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.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in
Criminal Case No.85/2000 and the judgment dated 05.08.2006
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2,
Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.40/2006 are affirmed but the
[2025:RJ-JD:8992] (5 of 5) [CRLR-719/2006]
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 the
petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
The revision petition is allowed in part.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
284-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
