Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fatehlal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10116) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10116]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 692/2006
Fateh Lal S/o Ram Lal, by caste Salvi, R/o Modi, Police Station
Kheroda, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
19/02/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 22.07.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur,
(for short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.3/2005
whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal
filed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2003 passed
by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vallabh Nagar,
District Udaipur, (for short, "the trial Court") in Criminal Regular
Case No.149/2002 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted
& sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month's SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:10116] (2 of 4) [CRLR-692/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant Heera
Lal gave a report to the concerned Police Station to the effect that
on 06.08.2002 Balbir Singh informed him that his brother Ganesh
Lal, who was going to Udaipur on his motor-cycle has met with an
accident at Bhanwarasiya Road, by the bus bearing registration
No.RJ-27-P-2746, which was driven by the petitioner rashly and
negligently. As a result of this accident, his brother was
succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.97/2002 was
lodged at Police Station Kheroda, against the petitioner. 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 upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as six 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
26.05.2003 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, Udaipur, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 22.07.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
[2025:RJ-JD:10116] (3 of 4) [CRLR-692/2006]
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 2002. He had remained in jail for thirteen 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 has been facing
trial since the year 2002 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 thirteen 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 23 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
[2025:RJ-JD:10116] (4 of 4) [CRLR-692/2006]
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 one year's 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 26.05.2003
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vallabhnagar,
Udaipur, in Criminal Regular Case No.149/2002 and the judgment
dated 22.07.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
(Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.3/2005 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 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.
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
21-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
