Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sant Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2767) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2767]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 501/2004
Sant Kumar S/o Shri Veeru Ram, By caste Jat, R/o Badsigri,
District Kethal (Haryana) (At present lodged at Central Jail,
Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Bhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
15/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 27.07.2004 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
in Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 whereby the learned appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 21.06.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in
Criminal Case No.168/1996 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC Two months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, three months'
additional S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC Three months' Rs.200/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, three months'
additional S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC One Year's Rs.1,000/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, three months'
additional S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:2767] (2 of 5) [CRLR-501/2004]
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 10.04.1996 at
11.30 A.M. complainant Gaurishanker lodged a report alleging
therein that at about 10.15 A.M. he alongwith Kishan were going
to Nohar. When they reached at 27 NTR, a truck was driven rashly
and negligently by petitioner and hit the scooter, due to which
they succumbed for injuries. 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 & 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.
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 parties and meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the
accused for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC vide
judgment dated 21.06.1997 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before
the appellate Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution
on 23.06.2001 and in compliance of dismissal of appeal, the
petitioner surrender on 18.08.2003 and thereafter he moved a
revision petition before this Court being S.B. Criminal Revision
[2025:RJ-JD:2767] (3 of 5) [CRLR-501/2004]
Petition No.825/2003, which was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 24.09.2003 and it is ordered that the appeal may be
restored to its original number and learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Nohar is also directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits in
accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioner moved a misc.
Petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1002/2003 before
this Court, which was decided on 11.11.2003 with the direction
that the applicant Sant Kumar Shall be released on bail.
Thereafter a fresh appeal was filed before the Sessions Court,
which was dismissed on 27.07.2004 and against that order the
petitioner moved this revision petition before this Court, in which
his sentence was suspended on 03.08.2004 and he released from
Jail on 06.08.2004. Both these judgments dated 21.06.1997 &
27.07.2004 are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. G.R. Bhari, 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 1996. He had
remained in jail for more three months after passing of the
judgment. 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 25 years old at the time of incident, now, he is
aged about 53 years and has been facing trial since the year 1996
and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient
view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
[2025:RJ-JD:2767] (4 of 5) [CRLR-501/2004]
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 more than 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
the rigor for last 29 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 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
21.06.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
[2025:RJ-JD:2767] (5 of 5) [CRLR-501/2004]
Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No.168/1996 and
the judgment dated 27.07.2004 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal
No.26/1997 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 is hereby
maintained. 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 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
9-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
