Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mumtaz Khan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5778) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5778]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 531/2004
Mumtaz Khan S/o Karim Khan, By caste Muslim, R/o Sheoganj,
P.S. Sheoganj, District Sirohi
[At present lodged in District Jail, Sirohi]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash 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 04.08.2004 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.35/2004 whereby the
learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and affirmed the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 18.10.1997 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sheoganj, District Sirohi in
Criminal Case No.303/1994. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 304-A IPC 6 months SI -
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months SI -
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.06.1994, the
complainant Kuparam submitted a written report against the accused-
[2025:RJ-JD:5778] (2 of 4) [CRLR-531/2004]
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
IPC and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 08.06.1994,
at about 09:00 AM, he and Aadaram were standing at a Bus Stand
Posalia. At about 09:15 AM, a taxi bearing registration No.RRT-7124
driven by one Mumtaz Khan in a rash and negligent manner came and
struck Aadaram, as a result of which, he died on the spot. On the basis
of this written report, a case under aforesaid Sections was registered
and investigation commenced. Charges were framed against the
accused-petitioner for aforesaid offences who pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. During the course of the trial, as many as 12 witnesses
were examined and submitted documents in support of their case. The
accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he
denied the allegations against him.
4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sheoganj, District
Sirohi convicted the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 279, and 304-A of IPC and sentenced the accused-petitioner
for 3 months and 1 year, however, the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 134/187 of
Motor Vehicles Act vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1997. Being
aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner
preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned
Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby the appellate court partly allowed the
appeal and affirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence awarded
to the accused-petitioner vide judgment dated 04.08.2004.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:5778] (3 of 4) [CRLR-531/2004]
the incident took place in the year 1994. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 8 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. The accused-petitioner was aged about 42 years
in 1994 at the time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about
73 years at present and is facing trial since the year 1994 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 8 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is one year
as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go
[2025:RJ-JD:5778] (4 of 4) [CRLR-531/2004]
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
18.10.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Sheoganj, District Sirohi in Criminal Case No.303/1994 and the
judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.35/2004 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence reduced by the learned appellate 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 petitioner is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are canceled.
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
4-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
