Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rustam Khan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1264) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1264]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599/2007
Rustam Khan S/o Shri Nasir Khan, By caste Musalman Sipahi,
R/o Badabas Jetaran, P.S. Jetaran, District Pali. (Presently lodged
in District Jail, Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
08/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 30.06.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali
Headquarters Jaitraran, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2006 whereby
the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 10.04.2006 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bar, District Pali, in Criminal Case
No.196/2004 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC Three months' Rs.500/- and in default of
imprisonment payment of fine, 15 days'
additional imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' Rs.2,000/- and in default of
imprisonment payment of fine, two months'
additional imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:1264] (2 of 5) [CRLR-599/2007]
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 03.03.2004
complainant Panchu Singh submitted a written report at Police
Station Sendhada alleging therein that his mother Jamri Devi
coming to his house through Sendhada National Highway at that
time a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-22-G-2164 driven by
petitioner rashly and negligently and hit his mother. Upon which,
Ganpat Singh, Narain Singh and the complainant stopped the
vehicle. 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.
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 9 witnesses were examined and 12 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 10.04.2006 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court,
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.06.2007. Both these
[2025:RJ-JD:1264] (3 of 5) [CRLR-599/2007]
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vishal Sharma, 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 2004. He had remained in jail for two months & twelve 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 was
37 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 58
years and has been facing trial since the year 2004 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 two months
& twelve 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1264] (4 of 5) [CRLR-599/2007]
the rigor for last 21 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 two years 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 and sentence dated
10.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bar, District Pali, in Criminal Case No.196/2004 and the judgment
dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
(Fast Track) No.1 Headquarters Pali, Jaitaran, in Criminal Appeal
No.12/2006 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, as ordered by the
learned trial Court, is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,500/- in total. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1264] (5 of 5) [CRLR-599/2007]
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
28-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
