Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jakir Hussain vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2774) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2774]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 493/2006
Jakir Hussain S/o Shokat Ali Musalman, Aged about 45 years,
R/o Santoshi Nagar, Kankroli, Distt. Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh
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 17.06.2006 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Criminal
Appeal No.15/2005 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated
29.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.146/1998 by which
the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 10 days SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 years' SI Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 20 days SI
Sec. 337 IPC 1 month' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 5 days SI
Sec. 134/187 MV - Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
Act fine, 2 days SI
[2025:RJ-JD:2774] (2 of 4) [CRLR-493/2006]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.06.1998 at
around 07:30 AM, complainant Bhanwar Singh filed a written report at
Police Station, Dalwara alleging that one Jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-30-C-6016 driven by Jakir Hussain in a rash and negligent
manner and ran over two girls namely Sumitra and Savita, due to which
one of them died on the spot. On basis on that report, the police
registered a case against the accused-petitioner under Section 279,
337, 304-A IPC and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. After completion
of investigation, police filed a challan in the aforesaid sections. During
the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses
but none of the witnesses support the prosecution case. The accused-
petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied
the allegations against him.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand after hearing the arguments, convicted the accused-
petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and
under Section 137/187 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him as mentioned
in the judgment dated 29.03.2005. Being aggrieved by the conviction
and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the
conviction and sentence before learned Additional Session Judge,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, whereby the appellate court dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment
dated 17.06.2006.
5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Jagmal Singh 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 learned trial court
[2025:RJ-JD:2774] (3 of 4) [CRLR-493/2006]
and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1998. The accused-
petitioner had remained in judicial custody for six days. No other case
has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and
belongs to the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner is
facing trial since the year 1998 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 from 17.06.2006 to
22.06.2006 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 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
[2025:RJ-JD:2774] (4 of 4) [CRLR-493/2006]
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
29.03.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.146/1998 and the
judgment dated 17.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Session
Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.15/2005
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.
The fine amount imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The
amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by
the petitioner, then two months' time is granted to the petitioner to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of
fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are canceled.
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
23-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
