Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishnaram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1318) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1318]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 909/2006
Kishnaram S/o Aada, By caste Mali, R/o Veradoli, Jalore, District
Jalore (At present lodged in District Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
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 20.09.2006 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Criminal Appeal
No.54/2003 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2003
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, in Criminal
Original Case No.141/2001 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC Six months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 07 days'
Simple imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC One year's Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 07 days'
Simple imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (2 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
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 complainant Ganga
Singh gave a written report at Police Station Jalore alleging
therein on 21.02.2001 at about 7.30 a.m. Mooparam was walking
on the left side of the road on Jalore Nakoda Road. A Jeep bearing
registration No.RJ-19-C-4917 driven by the petitioner rashly and
negligently, hit Mooparam. Due to which Mooparam succumbed to
injuries. 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 12 witnesses were examined. 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 25.11.2003 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 20.09.2006. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (3 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Purohit, 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 twenty seven 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 30 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 54 years and has
been facing trial since the year 2001 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 twenty
seven 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 24 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (4 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
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 One year 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
25.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalore, in Criminal Original Case No.141/2001 and the judgment
dated 20.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jalore, in
Criminal Appeal No.54/2003 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.4,000/- 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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:1318] (5 of 5) [CRLR-909/2006]
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
14-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
