Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bapu Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2784) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2784]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 827/2006
Bapu Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, B/c Rajput, aged about 33
years, R/o Ambapura, District Banswara.
(At present lodged in District Jail Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 01.09.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal
No.23/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2004
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class I, Banswara in
Criminal Case No.65/2000 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1.5 month S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.1000/- 1.5 month 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:2784] (2 of 4) [CRLR-827/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 02.04.2000,
complainant Punamchand filed a written report at P.S. Ambapura
inter alia alleging that at about 08:30 PM he was on duty at a fair
held in Ambapura. At that time, the petitioner while driving jeep
bearing registration number RJ-03-T-0097 rashly and negligently
hit one Kanti Lal due to which, Kanti Lal 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 8 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 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 05.04.2004 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Banswara which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 01.09.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Ms. Deepika Soni, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that she 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
[2025:RJ-JD:2784] (3 of 4) [CRLR-827/2006]
at the same time, she implores that the incident took place in the
year 2000. He had remained in jail for about 25 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 about 27
years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 52 years
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 25 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 25 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
[2025:RJ-JD:2784] (4 of 4) [CRLR-827/2006]
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
01.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.23/2005 & the judgment dated
05.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class I,
Banswara in Criminal Case No.65/2000 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.
10. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already
deposited by the petitioners, then two months' time is hereby
granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In
default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one
month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His
bail bonds are cancelled.
11. The revision petition is allowed in part.
12. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
13. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
