Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Labh Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1307) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1307]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1081/2006
Labh Singh S/o Chamba Singh, Aged 55 years, R/o Ghavgjra, PS
Kahvar, District Ropad (Roopnagar), Panjab.
(Presently lodged in Sub-Jail, Gulabpura)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
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 23.11.2006 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in
Criminal Appeal No.16/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
29.05.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.307/2002 by which
the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 304A IPC 2 years SI and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 1 month SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:1307] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1081/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 31.08.2002,
complainant Gopal Gurjar gave a written report to SHO Madandan
Singh at Gulabpura Hospital to the effect that when Jagdishpuri and
Banshilal were going towards Gulabpura on a motorcycle, at that
time, a truck bearing No.PB-32-CT-3837 came from opposite side in
a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result of
which, Jagdishpuri and Banshilal fell down on the road and sustained
severe injuries. Subsequently, Jagdish succumbed to the injuries.
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, 338, 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as 9 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, 338, 304A of IPC vide judgment dated
29.05.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
23.11.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court
in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ravindra Singh, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1307] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1081/2006]
court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same
time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2002. He
had remained in jail for about 14 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 61 years old at the time of incident, now, he is
aged about 84 years and has been facing trial since the year 2002
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 14 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 22 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 incarceration
[2025:RJ-JD:1307] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1081/2006]
for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of
two years 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
29.05.2006 passed by the learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.307/2002 and the
judgment dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal
No.16/2006 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.5,000/-. 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
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
15-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
