Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10123) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10123]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 398/2003
Jagdish Chandra S/o Mangi Lal, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Manikya
Nagar, Bhilwara, Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, 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 judgment dated 28.04.2003 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, in Criminal
Appeal No.93/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2002
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in
Criminal Case No.265/2002 by which the 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.250/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.2000/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.500/- 10 days' S.I.
2. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 18.11.1984, one
Kedarmal Kabra gave a written report to the Police at Police Station
Kotwali, Bhilwara to the effect that he engaged a bus for baraat
[2025:RJ-JD:10123] (2 of 4) [CRLR-398/2003]
ceremony, which was driven by Jagdish Chandra. Driver Jagdish
Chandra drove the bus in a very rash and negligent manner, as a
result of which, the bus collided with a tree near the road, due to
which, several passengers sustained injuries and one Mahaveer
Prasad Kabra died. 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.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial
of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 8 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 and then, 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 22.11.2002 and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 28.04.2003. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
4. Ld. Counsel Mr. Abhishek Charan, 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 1984. He had
remained in jail for about two months after passing of the judgment
by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him.
[2025:RJ-JD:10123] (3 of 4) [CRLR-398/2003]
He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section
of the society. He was 34 years old at the time of incident, now he is
aged about 75 years and is facing trial since the year 1984 and he
has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be
taken in reducing his sentence.
5. 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 two months and
except the present one no other case has been registered against
him.
6. 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.
7. 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 41
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 incarceration
for some days 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:10123] (4 of 4) [CRLR-398/2003]
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2003
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in
Criminal Appeal No.93/2002 & the judgment dated 22.11.2002
passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in
Criminal Case No.265/2002 is 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. Two months' time is granted
to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
11. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
2-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
