Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pema Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2730) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2730]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 635/2004
Pema Ram S/o Soma Ram, by Case Meghwal, R/o Village -
Sarnau, District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, 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 26.08.2004 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barmer, in Criminal Appeal
No.18/2000 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated
28.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barmer in Criminal Case No.224/1993 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 month' RI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 months' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' RI Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 months' SI
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 10.11.1992 at
around 1:00 PM, PW/1 Dharma Ram submitted a written report at Police
[2025:RJ-JD:2730] (2 of 4) [CRLR-635/2004]
Station, Kotwali Barmer, alleging that his daughter Kumari Veena, a
student of Class IV studying in Bal Mandir School was coming home
with Surendra on a bicycle. When they reached near the house of
Sunars, Surendra stopped the bicycle and went for urinating and Veena
was standing near the bicycle on the road. At that time a truck, bearing
registration No.RJ-04-G-0061 driven by Pema Ram ran over Kumari
Veena due to which she died. This incident was witnessed by Ratan Lal
and Kishan Lal. On the basis of written report, the police registered a
case under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and commenced the
investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted
a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and under Section 3/180 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses and submitted documents in support of their
case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
in which he denied the allegations against him and stated that he has
been falsely implicated in this case and no witness was
produced/examined in defence.
4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer after
hearing the final arguments of both sides, while accquitting the
accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 3/180 of M.V. Act,
convicted the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and
304-A of IPC and sentenced his as mentioned in the judgment dated
28.04.2000. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and
sentence before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barmer,
whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 26.08.2004.
[2025:RJ-JD:2730] (3 of 4) [CRLR-635/2004]
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
and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1992. The accused-
petitioner had remained in judicial custody for about 2 months. 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 was aged about 17 years in 1992 at the time of incident and
the accused-petitioner is aged about 50 years at present and has been
facing trial since the year 1992 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 26.08.2004 to
29.10.2004 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
[2025:RJ-JD:2730] (4 of 4) [CRLR-635/2004]
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
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
28.04.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barmer in Criminal Case No.224/1993 and the judgment dated
26.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2000 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 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
10-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
