Kamal Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13164)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8259 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8259 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamal Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13164) on 5 March, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:13164]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 655/2006

Kamal Singh S/o Hemraj Singh, resident of Jamlavada (Chhoti
Sadri), District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP.
                                                                         ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Sanjay Mathur.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                      ORDER

05/03/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the

judgment dated 19.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No.44/2006 whereby the

judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Cr. Regular Case

No.275/2003 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections 304-A IPC 1 year's R.I and fine of Rs.2,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I.

The record of the case file shows that on 28.10.1996, the

complainant lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that at the time

when a lady working under the control of contractor Rajaram

[2025:RJ-JD:13164] (2 of 4) [CRLR-655/2006]

Choudhary was sleeping under a tree beside the construction site

with her 2-year old child, the accused-petitioner driving the trolley

tractor bearing registration No.RJ-09-R-1574 carrying stones for

construction, ran the vehicle over the child, as a result of which,

the child died on the spot.

On the basis of this, an FIR No.249/1996 for the offence

under Section 304-A IPC and the investigation was commenced.

The investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation

found the driver of the offending tractor to be the present

petitioner and filed a charge sheet against him for the offences

under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was arrested

during the course of investigation.

After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion of

trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-

petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentence so awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 11.08.2006 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.206/2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1996. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has suffered agony of a

long protracted trial and therefore, without making any

interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to him

[2025:RJ-JD:13164] (3 of 4) [CRLR-655/2006]

may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone

by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending adjudication

since the year 2006.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1996 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2006.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

[2025:RJ-JD:13164] (4 of 4) [CRLR-655/2006]

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner

for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the sentence

awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.