Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:6100) on 30 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:6100]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2006
Ajay Singh S/o Bharat Singh, By caste Rajput, R/o Kalika Mata,
Banswara (Lodged at District Jail, Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
30/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 24.08.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Banswara, in Criminal Appeal
No.39/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
17.09.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Banswara, in Criminal Regular Case No.474/1995 by which the
learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' RI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 3 months' S.I.
Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' RI Rs.2,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, six months'
S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' RI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, 15 days' S.I.
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' RI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 3 months' S.I.
Sec. 134/187 of --- Rs.200/- and in default of
M.V. Act payment of fine, 7 days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:6100] (2 of 5) [CRLR-793/2006]
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 09.03.1995
Sharda Charan lodged a written report at Police Station Sadar to
the effect that persons viz. Sanjeev and Panna Lal, after working
at his mines, were going to Banswara on motorcycle, at that time
an unknown vehicle hit the motorcycle. In the said accident, one
Gopal Singh was also injured and on this report, the FIR was
lodged against unknown vehicle. During investigation, one eye
witness Ranwat Singh was examined and he stated that vehicle
bearing registration No.RJ-03-P-0274 driven by petitioner rashly
and negligently and hit the injured. 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 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 134/187 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the
accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many
as ten 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 134/187 of
M.V. Act vide judgment dated 17.09.2001 and sentenced him as
[2025:RJ-JD:6100] (3 of 5) [CRLR-793/2006]
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which
was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.08.2006. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Manoj Pareek, 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 1995. He had remained in jail for sixteen 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 has been facing
trial since the year 1995 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 sixteen 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:6100] (4 of 5) [CRLR-793/2006]
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 30 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
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
17.09.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Banswara, in Criminal Case No.474/1995 and the judgment dated
24.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Banswara, in Criminal Appeal No.39/2004 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
[2025:RJ-JD:6100] (5 of 5) [CRLR-793/2006]
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
90-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
