Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Teja Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1325) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 17/2007
Teja Ram S/o Shri Kushla Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Malkisar, PS
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
(At present lodged in District Jail, Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. LK Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudahry
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 02.01.2007 passed by the learned
District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.01/2005
whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against
the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2004 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisalmer, in
Criminal Original Case No.97/2003 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months SI
Sec. 338 IPC 1 year SI
Sec. 304A IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 7 days SI
Sec. 134/187 of MV 1 month SI and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment
Act of fine to further undergo 2 days SI
[2025:RJ-JD:1325] (2 of 4) [CRLR-17/2007]
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 01.11.2000,
complainant Kedar Singh gave an oral report to the Police at
Government Hospital, Jaisalmer to the effect that in the previous night,
he was travelling from Bikaner to Jaisalmer in a Bus bearing No.RJ-07-
P-1586 and in the said bus, total 30-32 passengers were travelling.
Early in the morning, due to rash and negligent driving, the said Bus
dashed with a truck, which was parked nearby the road. As a result of
which, some passengers received injuries and one person died on the
spot. Upon the aforesaid report, 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, 304A IPC and Section 134/187
of MV Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 21 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 has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act vide judgment
dated 14.12.2004 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 02.01.2007.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:1325] (3 of 4) [CRLR-17/2007]
5. Learned counsel Mr. LD Khatri, 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. He had remained in jail for about
15 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 26 years old
at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 51 years and has been
facing trial since the year 2003 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 15 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:1325] (4 of 4) [CRLR-17/2007]
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
14.12.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jaisalmer in Criminal Original Case No.97/2003
and the judgment dated 02.01.2007 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.1/2005 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. However, the
fine amount is hereby enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. Two months' time is
granted to deposit the enhanced fine amount before the trial court. The
fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be
adjusted. If the petitioner fails to deposit the enhanced fine amount, he
shall undergo the default sentence. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not 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
17-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
