Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Gaffur vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1279) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1279]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 593/2007
Abdul Gaffur S/o Ahmed, B/c Musalman, R/o Kuchera, P.S.
Marwar Mundwa, District Nagaur (At present lodged in Central
Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Acharya
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 28.06.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Criminal
Appeal No.36/2007 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
15.05.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) &
Judicial Magistrate First Class No.1, Bhilwara, in Original Criminal
Case No.402/1987 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC One month's Rs.300/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 07 days'
Simple imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC 6 months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, ten days'
Simple imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:1279] (2 of 5) [CRLR-593/2007]
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 01.05.1987
complainant Vinod Kumar Parashar gave a written report alleging
therein that at about 6-7 a.m. his father Shri Niwas Parasar went
to morning walk to Ramdham. While returning back, a truck
bearing registration No.RNN-3321 driven in a rash and negligent
manner by the petitioner and hit his father. Due to which his
father succumbed from injuries. Upon the aforesaid information,
an FIR was registered for offence under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC
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 6 witnesses were examined and 7 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 15.05.1999 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 28.06.2007. Both these
[2025:RJ-JD:1279] (3 of 5) [CRLR-593/2007]
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Amitabh Acharya, 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 1987. He had remained in jail for two 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 23 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 60 years and has
been facing trial since the year 1987 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
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:1279] (4 of 5) [CRLR-593/2007]
the rigor for last 37 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 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
15.05.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) &
Judicial Magistrate First Class No.1, Bhilwara, in Criminal Case
No.402/1987 and the judgment dated 28.06.2007 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal
No.36/2007 (11/1999) 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.2,500/- 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 the petitioner shall be adjusted. The
[2025:RJ-JD:1279] (5 of 5) [CRLR-593/2007]
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
26-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
