Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satveer vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:9206) on 14 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:9206]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1009/2007
Satveer S/o Shri Momanram, Aged About 35, By Caste Goswami,
R/o Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
[At present lodged in Central Jail, Hanumangarh]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Goswami
Ms. Kamla Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
14/02/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal
Appeal No.26/2004 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 04.10.2004 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.465/1999 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 months' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' RI Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 4 months' SI
Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 months' SI
[2025:RJ-JD:9206] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1009/2007]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.09.1999, Shri
Paramjeet Singh gave Parcha Bayan that he along with his family was
travelling to Gogamedi from Hissar in a rented Jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-31-1420. Upon reaching Dabdi T-junction, another Jeep bearing
registration No.HR-21-5752, while reversing suddenly entered the
roadway. As a result of which, the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-31-
1420 collided with the reversing vehicle from behind, lost control and
met with an accident. Passengers in the Jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-31-1420 sustained some injuries and Paramjeet Singh's Uncle
Ammilal and Daughter Rajni died during treatment. On the basis of
Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case under Sections 279, 304-A
and 337 of IPC and commenced the investigation. During the course of
trial, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and submitted
certain documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations
against.
4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh after hearing the final arguments of both sides, convicted
and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A and
337 of IPC vide order dated 04.10.2004. Being aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the appellate court
affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 13.09.2007.
5. Learned counsel Mr. N.R. Goswami, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
[2025:RJ-JD:9206] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1009/2007]
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 1999. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 17 days. No other case has been
reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to
the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner was aged
about 20 years in 1999 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 46 years at present and has been facing trial
since the year 1999 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 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is one year
[2025:RJ-JD:9206] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1009/2007]
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 04.10.2004 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.465/1999 and the judgment dated
13.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2004 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 fine amount
imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The amount of fine
imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by the petitioner,
then two months' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 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
166-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
