Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ursay Khan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4201) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4201]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1049/2006
Ursay Khan S/o Shri Kasam Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Kuchadi,
Tehsil & District Jaisalmer (At present lodged in jail at Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. G.R. Kalla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 09.10.2006 passed
by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal
Appeal No.4/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court while
partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 27.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First
Class) Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.173/2003 by which
the learned trial Judge has acquitted the petitioner for offence
under Section 3/181 M.V. Act and convicted & sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' RI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 15 days' S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' RI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, 15 days' S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' RI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, three months'
S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:4201] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1049/2006]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 12.12.2001
complainant Khet Singh gave a written report at Police Station
Jaisalmer, to the effect that he was driving bus and went from
Ramgarh to Jaisalmer. At about 11 a.m. a truck bearing
registration No.RJ-15-G-182 came rashly and negligently and hit
the bus of the complainant. In the said accident, may persons
were got injured and one Raan Singh succumbed from 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, 337 & 304-A of IPC and Section
3/181 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as twelve
witnesses were examined and certain 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 accused petitioner and
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-
A of IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated
27.04.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated
[2025:RJ-JD:4201] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1049/2006]
09.10.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. G.R. Kalla, 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 2001. He had
remained in jail for more than fifty 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 was 25 years old at the time of
incident, now, he is aged about 49 years and has been facing trial
since the year 2001 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 more than fifty
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 24 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments
[2025:RJ-JD:4201] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1049/2006]
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 some time incarceration and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of two years 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
27.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.173/2003 and the
judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed by the learned District &
Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, in Criminal Appeal No.4/2006 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 before the trial court. In
default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's
simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by
the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
[2025:RJ-JD:4201] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1049/2006]
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
