Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Magan Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4256) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4256]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 956/2006
Magan Lal S/o Shri Ramji Kallasuwa, by caste Meena, R/o
Barothi Falla Nichali, Police Station Bichiwada, District Dungarpur
(Lodged at District Jail, Dungarpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chain Singh
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 27.09.2006 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2001 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2001
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Dungarpur, in
Criminal Regular Case No.106/1998 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:4256] (2 of 4) [CRLR-956/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 01.05.1998
complainant Dhula gave an oral report at Police Station Bichiwada,
Dungarpur, to the effect that on 30.04.1998 at about 4.00 P.M. he
received an information from Narsi Meena that a truck bearing
registration No.RJJ-341 driven by petitioner rashly and negligently
and hit one Manji Meena. Due to which Manji Meena 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 eight 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated
25.06.2001 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
27.09.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Chain 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,
[2025:RJ-JD:4256] (3 of 4) [CRLR-956/2006]
he implores that the incident took place in the year 1998. He had
remained in jail for about thirty seven 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 22 years old at the time of
incident, now, he is aged about 49 years and has been facing trial
since the year 1998 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 thirty seven
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 26 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
[2025:RJ-JD:4256] (4 of 4) [CRLR-956/2006]
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
25.06.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Dungarpur, in Criminal Regular Case No.106/1998 and the
judgment dated 27.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge
Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2001 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.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
