Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maniram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2943) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2943]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 562/2016
Maniram S/o Shri Hajariram, Aged 50 years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o
Village Jangloo, PS Panchu, District Bikaner.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajathan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
16/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Appellate Rent Tribunal),
Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.134/2014 (NCV
No.48/2016) whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2012
passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Original
Case No.71/2010 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 1 month Addl.
imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC One year SI and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo two months
Addl. imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:2943] (2 of 4) [CRLR-562/2016]
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 on 28.03.2000, injured
Imran gave a parcha bayan to Mukand Singh, SI to the effect that
when he was going towards his house by Luna, a track bearing
No.RJ-07-G-2006 came from behind and hit the injured Imran. As a
result of which, Imran sustained multiple severe injuries on his body
and subsequently, he died during treatment. Upon the aforesaid
report, 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, 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as 12 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 parties and
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 304A of IPC
vide judgment dated 24.11.2012 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 21.05.2016. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. RK Bishnoi, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and
[2025:RJ-JD:2943] (3 of 4) [CRLR-562/2016]
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 2000. He had
remained in jail for about 15 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 has been 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 15 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 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 has suffered incarceration
[2025:RJ-JD:2943] (4 of 4) [CRLR-562/2016]
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
24.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Addl
Chief Judicial Magistrate NO.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal
Original Case No.71/2010 and the judgment dated 21.05.2016
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Appellate Rent
Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.134/2014
(NCV No.48/2016) 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 amount
before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by
the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine
amount, he shall undergo the default sentence. 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
149-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
