Hem Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4948)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5139 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5139 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hem Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4948) on 22 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:4948]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 768/2004

Hem Singh S/o Khim Singh, R/o Shivkar, P.S. Barmer Sadar,
Distt. Barmer
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. B.S. Rathore
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 11.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Barmer in Cr. Appeal No.34/2002 whereby the

judgment dated 30.09.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Regular Case No.224/1998 was upheld

and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 279 IPC 1 month's S.I and fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 5 days' S.I. 304-A IPC 1½ years' R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 50 days' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[2025:RJ-JD:4948] (2 of 4) [CRLR-768/2004]

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 27.05.1998, the

complainant Purkha Ram submitted a written report before the

SHO of Police Station Chohtan stating that at around 09:00 A.M.,

the complainant's nephew- Akharam was walking towards village

Dhanau by the side of road, at that time roadways bus No.RJ-04-

P-087 which was going towards Bakhasar via Sanchore, hit

Akharam. The petitioner was the driver of the offending bus who

was driving the same. As the result, Akharam succumbed to the

injuries while undergoing treatment at the Hospital. On the basis

of aforesaid report, an FIR No.58/1998 was registered at Police

Station Chohtan for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of

IPC and Section 284/187 of the MV Act and the investigation was

commenced. The investigating agency after conducting thorough

investigation found the driver of the offending bus to be the

present petitioner and he was negligently driving the offending

vehicle.

After filing of the charge sheet and upon completition of trial,

the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-

petitioner for the offences under Section 279 & 304-A of IPC and

Section 284/187 of MV Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 05.11.2004 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.200/2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1998. Learned counsel for the

[2025:RJ-JD:4948] (3 of 4) [CRLR-768/2004]

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

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 2004.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2004.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:4948] (4 of 4) [CRLR-768/2004]

of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

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 & 304-A of the IPC, the

sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him.