Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1268) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1268]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 909/2005
Dinesh Kumar S/o Mohan Ji, By Caste Harijan, R/o Varada, Tehsil
and Distt. Sirohi.
(At present lodged at Distt. Jail, Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash 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 15.10.2005 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.114/2003 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sirohi in Criminal Case
No.218/2000 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 3 months' SI
Sec. 279 IPC 3 month SI Rs.250/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 month SI Rs.250/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 338 IPC 1 year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 3 months' SI
[2025:RJ-JD:1268] (2 of 4) [CRLR-909/2005]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.05.2000, PW/2
Keva Ram lodged a written report at Police Station Barloot alleging inter
alia that in the morning at about 08:00 AM, he and his brother Rana
Ram along with his wife Shaku and others were going to Sirohi for
'"Darshan of Mataji" in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-16-T-0273
driven by Dinesh Kumar Harijan. Near Mandvariya Chauraha, another
Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-24-T-0097 driven by Rata Ram coming
from the opposite direction collided with it due to which the Jeep
bearing registration No.RJ-16-T-0273 overturned and Rana Ram,
brother of PW/2 Keva Ram fell down and died on the spot. On the basis
of this written report, a case under aforesaid Sections was registered
and investigation commenced. Charges were framed against the
petitioner for aforesaid offences who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. During the course of the trial, as many as 19 witnesses were
examined. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and stated that
he was not driving the Jeep when the accident occurred.
4. The Learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner for
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC
and awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment and fine vide
judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003. Being aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the conviction and sentence before learned Sessions Judge,
Sirohi, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 15.10.2005.
[2025:RJ-JD:1268] (3 of 4) [CRLR-909/2005]
5. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Deora, 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 2000. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 2 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. The accused-petitioner was aged about 19 years
in 2000 at the time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about
44 years at present and is facing trial since the year 2000 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 2 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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1268] (4 of 4) [CRLR-909/2005]
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 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
31.10.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sirohi in
Criminal Case No.218/2000 and the judgment dated 15.10.2005 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.115/2003
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 imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited, 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 petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds are canceled.
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
5-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
