Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1475) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1475]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/2007
Bhanwar Singh S/o Fateh Singh B/c Rajput R/o Kankria, P.S.
Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh. (At present lodged at Dist. Jail, Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vardha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 16.05.2007 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.4/2007
whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed
against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2006 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Original Case
No.208/1997 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.200/- 3 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 3 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 15 days' S.I.
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 09.10.1997
statement of Poonam Singh was recorded at Police Station Guda
[2025:RJ-JD:1475] (2 of 4) [CRLR-449/2007]
Endla. Poonam Singh stated that at about 06:30 PM, his uncle Jai
Singh along with some other persons departed for village Sonkda
by his jeep bearing registration number RJ-22-C-1588. On their
way, a bus bearing registration number RJ-19-P-2753 was coming
from opposite direction which was being driven by the present
petitioner rashly & negligently at very high speed hit the jeep. Due
to which, the driver of jeep Kana Ram died on the spot and other
passengers 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 12 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
08.12.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge, Pali which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 16.05.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. V.R. Choudhary, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:1475] (3 of 4) [CRLR-449/2007]
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 1997. He had remained in jail for about nine 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 31 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 59 years and is
facing trial since the year 1997 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 nine 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 is facing the rigor
for last 28 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1475] (4 of 4) [CRLR-449/2007]
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 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
16.05.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal
Appeal No.04/2007 & the judgment dated 08.12.2006 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Original Case
No.208/1997 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. The fine amount imposed by the trial
Court is hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
194-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
