Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Major Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28873) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28873]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 336/2008
Major Singh S/o Lal Singh, Resident of Mahamadpur, Police
Station Sherpur, District Sangrur (Punjab).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3,
Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2007 (11/2005) whereby
the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 14.01.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh, in Criminal
Case No.242/2003 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 337 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 338 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 4 months' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 6 months' S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:28873] (2 of 4) [CRLR-336/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.06.2002,
complainant Hargun Singh gave a parcha bayan to the Police, to the
effect that he was carrying the dead body of Atmasingh along with his
family members in a matador vehicle bearing registration number DL-4-
C-2399, which was driven by Waseem Akram. When the matador
reached Shergarh Tiraha, a truck bearing registration number PB-23-
9045, driven by the present petitioner, came from the wrong side and
collided with the matador. As a result of the collision, the occupants of
the matador sustained severe injuries and three of them died on the
spot. Upon the aforesaid information, 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and some
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 convicted the accused for offence under Sections
279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 14.01.2005 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional District and
Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide judgment dated
28.03.2008. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court
in the instant revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:28873] (3 of 4) [CRLR-336/2008]
5. Learned Counsel Mr. S.D. Goswami, 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 2002. He had
remained in jail about twenty six 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 was 32 years old at the time of incident, now he is
aged about 55 years and is facing trial since the year 2002 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 twenty six 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 23
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
[2025:RJ-JD:28873] (4 of 4) [CRLR-336/2008]
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 incarceration
for some days 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 dated 28.03.2008
passed by learned Additonal District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
No.3, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.14/2007 (11/05) & the
judgment dated 14.01.2005 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.242/2003
is 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 imposed by the trial Court is hereby
maintained. 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
131-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
