Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranchhore Puri vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:12451) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12451]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1135/2006
Ranchhore Puri S/o Shambhupuri, aged about 32 years, R/o
Dhavali, Tehsil Reodar, Distict Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 28.11.2006 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.15/2006
whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2006 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reodar in Criminal
Regular Case No.221/1998. The appellate Judge convicted and
modified the sentence given to the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:12451] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2006]
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 06.08.1998,
complainant Teja gave Parcha Bayan alleging that he along with
Ragaram were going towards Reodar on a scooter. A jeep being
driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner coming from
opposite direction hit the scooter due to which both of them fell
down and Ragaram died on his way to hospital and the
complainant also suffered injuries. 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 upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 19 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. 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
25.03.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi
which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 28.11.2006. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:12451] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2006]
5. Learned counsel Mr. Rahul Sharma, 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 1998. He had remained in jail for about 22 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 1998 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 22 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 courts
below, 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 27 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,
[2025:RJ-JD:12451] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1135/2006]
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 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 28.11.2006
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal
No.15/2006 & the judgment dated 25.03.2006 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reodar in Criminal
Regular Case No.221/1998 is 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.
10. The fine amount is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
11. The revision petition is allowed in part.
12. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
13. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
28-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
