Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1267) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1267]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 212/2006
Mohan S/o Shri Amar Ji Gadariya Lohar R/o Gamari-Ahara, Tehsil
& District Dungarpur.
(Presently lodged in District Jail, Dungarpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 17.02.2006 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, District Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.59/2001 (348/97) by
which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.50/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.50/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.100/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.100/- 15 days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:1267] (2 of 5) [CRLR-212/2006]
2. All 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 20.07.1991 ASI,
Police Station, Bichhiwara received an information from Dungarpur
General Hospital that an accident took place at Oda Bada. The ASI
went to the place of incident and filed a report to the extent that
at about 06:30 AM, a truck bearing registration number GRN-5400
and a jeep bearing registration number GJ-02-9843 being driven
by the petitioner had collided at Oda Bada. Due to which, a
passenger Bhagwati Shanker died and other persons got injured.
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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as 17 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, 338 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated
17.05.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur which was dismissed vide
[2025:RJ-JD:1267] (3 of 5) [CRLR-212/2006]
judgment dated 17.02.2006. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore, 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 1991. He had remained in jail for about five months 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 19 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 53 years and is
facing trial since the year 1991 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 five months
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 is facing the rigor
for last 34 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by
[2025:RJ-JD:1267] (4 of 5) [CRLR-212/2006]
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 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
17.02.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in
Criminal Appeal No.29/2004 & the judgment dated 17.05.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.59/2001(348/97) 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.
10. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is enhanced for
the offences as under:-
(i) Section 279 & 337 IPC : Rs.500-/ in each offence.
(ii) Section 338 IPC : Rs.2,000/-
(iii) Section 304-A IPC : Rs.5,000/-
11. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:1267] (5 of 5) [CRLR-212/2006]
shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
12. The revision petition is allowed in part.
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
11-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
