Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Vahid vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28935) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28935]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 195/2005
Abdul Vahid S/o Gulam Rasul R/o Noor Mahal Ke Paas,
Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utkarsh S. Gurjar
Mr. Ankit Ghorela
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
04/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 02.03.2005 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.09/2004 whereby the learned
appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2004 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No.121/1994. The appellate Judge
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:28935] (2 of 4) [CRLR-195/2005]
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.1994, Prithviraj
gave an oral report to the extent that today at about 09.45 AM his
niece Bhuri was standing near the road. At that time, a truck
coming from Chittorgarh being driven by the petitioner rashly &
negligently hit the child (Bhuri) due to which she died on the spot.
Upon the aforesaid report of the complainant, an 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and various
documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought
from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he
denied the same. Then, after hearing the learned counsel for the
accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence,
learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offence under
Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 23.04.2004 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
Judge which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 02.03.2005.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset
submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
[2025:RJ-JD:28935] (3 of 4) [CRLR-195/2005]
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and partly
allowed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1994. He had
remained in jail for about 28 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 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 28 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 and he is facing the rigor
for last 31 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28935] (4 of 4) [CRLR-195/2005]
has suffered incarceration for some days 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 dated 28.06.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.09/2004 & the judgment dated
23.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Case
No.121/1994 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence modified by
the learned appellate Court is reduced 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
imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. The amount of
fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the
petitioner, then two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
120-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
