Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balu Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10357) on 20 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10357]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 216/2007
Balu Ram S/o Baldev, by caste Mali, R/o Kari Ka Lamba, Police
Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/02/2025
Earlier on 08.01.2025, 22.01.2025, 05.02.2025 and
19.02.2025 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 numerous occasions, 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. Kuldeep 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:10357] (2 of 5) [CRLR-216/2007]
By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 14.03.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara,
in Criminal Appeal No.41/2004 whereby the learned appellate
Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case
No.100/2001 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 -------
Sec. 337 IPC 1 month's SI -------
Sec. 338 IPC 4 months' SI -------
Sec. 304A IPC 6 months' SI Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, two months'
S.I.
Sec. 146/196 ---- Rs.500/- and in default of
M.V. Act payment of fine, fifteen days'
S.I.
All 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 02.03.2001
complainant Fakruddin Lodged a report at Police Station
Gulabpura, to the effect that on 02.03.2001 at about 8.30 P.M. an
accident was caused by a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-01-R-
3704, which was driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and in
the said accident one person was injured and another succumbed
to injuries. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:10357] (3 of 5) [CRLR-216/2007]
The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 192 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as
eighteen 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. In defence, three witnesses were examined and some
documents were exhibited. 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section
146/196 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 15.09.2004 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions
Judge Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 14.03.2007. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep 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 2001. He had remained in jail for about twenty
three 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 2001 and he has languished in
[2025:RJ-JD:10357] (4 of 5) [CRLR-216/2007]
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 about twenty
three days 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 24 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 had 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:10357] (5 of 5) [CRLR-216/2007]
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2004
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura,
District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.100/2001 and the judgment
dated 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.41/2004 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 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
204-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
