Mainpal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4929)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5085 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5085 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mainpal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4929) on 22 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:4929]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 930/2007

Mainpal S/o Hardayal Singh, R/o Kayali, Police Station Bahrod,
District Alwar
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv.
                                Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                           ORDER

22/01/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the

judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Cr. Appeal No.18/2007

whereby the judgment dated 23.05.2006 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhim, District Rajsamand in

Cr. Regular Case No.243/1997 was upheld and the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 279 IPC 3 months' S.I and fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 days' S.I. 337 IPC 3 months' S.I and fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 days' S.I. 304-A IPC 1 year's S.I and fine of Rs.1,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to

[2025:RJ-JD:4929] (2 of 4) [CRLR-930/2007]

further undergo 15 days' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The record of the case file shows that on 25.06.1997, at

around 02:00 P.M., the complainant, his wife- Vijaylaxmi and his

brother-in-law Haridutt were travelling in a car bearing registration

No.DL-1-Y-3938. The petitioner was the driver of the aforesaid car

which hit the tractor trolley from behind. As the result of the

aforesaid accident, they all received several injuries and the

complainant's wife - Vijaylaxmi died while undergoing treatment.

On the basis of this, an FIR No.180/1997 was registered at Police

Station Bhim, District Rajsamand for the offences under Sections

279 and 337 IPC and the investigation was commenced. The

investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation found

the driver of the offending car to be the present petitioner and

thereafter, arrested the petitioner.

After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion of

trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-

petitioner as above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 06.09.2007 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.258/2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1997. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

[2025:RJ-JD:4929] (3 of 4) [CRLR-930/2007]

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to him may be

substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by

him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending adjudication

since the year 2007.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1997 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

[2025:RJ-JD:4929] (4 of 4) [CRLR-930/2007]

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner

for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the IPC, the

sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him. The petitioner are on bail. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.