Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kachru Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5777) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 754/2005
Kachru Lal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Tamboli, R/o shastri Colony,
Panwada, Dungarpur Tehsil & District Dungarpur (At Present
lodged in District Jail Dungarpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, Pp with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 09.08.2005 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal
No.25/2000 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2000
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungarpur, in
Regular Criminal Case No.261/1999 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, 15 days SI
Sec. 337 IPC 1 month Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
fine, one month Addl. imprisonment
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, two months Addl. imprisonment
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year Rs.1000/- and in default of payment
of fine, 3 month Addl. imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:5777] (2 of 4) [CRLR-754/2005]
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 28.10.1992,
complainant Nathu lodged an FIR before the concerned Police Station
to the effect that at about 10 AM, when he was at home, a Jeep
bearing No. RRT-3304 came from Dungarpur and stopped there, at
that time a Roadways Bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-0830 came from
Dungapur and hit the Jeep from behind, as a result of which, the
occupants of the Jeep sustained severe injuries including some
fatalities. The said bus was being driven by the petitioner in a rash
and negligent manner. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the
police registered a case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC
and commenced the investigation. Upon the aforesaid report, 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, 338 & 304A IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined. 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, 338 & 304A of IPC vide
judgment dated 19.07.2000 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
[2025:RJ-JD:5777] (3 of 4) [CRLR-754/2005]
09.08.2005. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court
in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mudit Vaishnav, 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 1992. The
accused-petitioner had remained in jail for more than one month
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. The petitioner is aged
about 75 years at present and is facing trial since the year 1992 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 one month
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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:5777] (4 of 4) [CRLR-754/2005]
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 one year 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
19.07.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.261/1999 and the judgment
dated 09.08.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur
in Criminal Appeal No.25/2000 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 amount
before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by
the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine
amount, he shall undergo default sentence. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not 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
8-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
