Moti Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4930)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5140 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5140 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Moti Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4930) on 22 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:4930]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1061/2007

Moti Lal S/o Sh. Tej Raj, R/o Village Panthedi, Tehsil Sayala,
Distt. Jalore
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah
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 21.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Jalore in Cr. Appeal No.32/2005 whereby the judgment

dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Jalore in Cr. Original Case No.16/2001 was upheld and the

petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 279 IPC 6 months' R.I and fine of Rs.500/-

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

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' S.I. 337 IPC 3 month's R.I and fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I. 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act A fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of

[2025:RJ-JD:4930] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007]

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

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that as per the Parcha

Bayan of the complainant on 01.05.2000, at around 03:00 P.M.,

near his agricultural field, the petitioner who was driving his car

hit the Jaga Ram's motorcycle. As the result, Jaga Ram died on

the spot. On the basis of this, an FIR No.56/2000 was registered

at Police Station Sayala, District Jalore for the offences under

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

Secitons 279, 337 & 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act

was filed against the present petitioner.

Upon completion of trial, the learned trial court

convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences

under Section 279, 334 & 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 24.10.2007 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.282/2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 2000. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

[2025:RJ-JD:4930] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007]

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 2007.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 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

[2025:RJ-JD:4930] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1061/2007]

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, 337 & 304-A of the IPC and

Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the sentences awarded to

him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him.