Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhatar Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2717) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2717]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 387/2001
Chhatar Singh S/o Shri Onar Singh, Caste Rajput, R/o Kuchhi
Basti, Udaipur (Presently lodged in District Jail Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Arun Kumar, for complainant.
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 13.07.2001 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali, in Criminal Appeal
No.59/1999 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.1998
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
(Environment), Pali, in Criminal Case No.1500/1995 by which the
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC Six months' -----
S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC One year's -----
S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:2717] (2 of 4) [CRLR-387/2001]
2. Both 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 complainant Raju
Singh gave a written report at Police Station Guda Endla alleging
therein on 19.10.1995 at about 5.00 p.m. he went for his work at
village Dingai. A Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-1-C-885 was also
moving on the road, in which Ramlal Mistri and Paras Harijan was
present. At village Dhola a bus bearing registration No.RJ-27-P-
255 driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, hit the Jeep.
Due to which Paras Harijan succumbed to 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 & 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. 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated
06.02.1998 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
[2025:RJ-JD:2717] (3 of 4) [CRLR-387/2001]
13.07.2001. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Bajrang 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 court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 1995. He had remained in jail for one months and ten 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. He
has been facing trial since the year 1995 and he has languished in
jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in
reducing his sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
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 one month and ten 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 30 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada
[2025:RJ-JD:2717] (4 of 4) [CRLR-387/2001]
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
06.02.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
(Pollution), Pali, in Criminal Case No.1500/1995 and the judgment
dated 13.07.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.59/1999 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
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
2-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
