Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:12444) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12444]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 422/2004
Shyam Lal S/o Fauza Ram B/c Bhat R/o Dhula Ba ki Dhani, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/03/2025
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even in the second
round, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma is
appointed as amicus curiae in this matter. The remuneration to the
amicus curiae shall be paid by Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority, Jodhpur.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report received from
Police Station Sadar Pali, District Pali wherein it is mentioned that
the petitioner Shyamlal is alive.
3. Heard.
4. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 23.06.2004 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.7/2004
whereby the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal filed
against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2004 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Pali in
[2025:RJ-JD:12444] (2 of 5) [CRLR-422/2004]
Criminal Case No.22/2003 whereby learned trial Judge convicted
and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 1 month S.I. Rs.100/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 1 month S.I. Rs.100/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 1 month S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 months' S.I.
5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
6. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.10.2002,
complainant Kailash submitted a written report at Police Station
Sadar Pali to the extent that today at about 2 PM, the present
petitioner was taking 25-30 persons in his tractor trolley to a
temple. When they reached highway, the petitioner was driving
the tractor rashly & negligently and trying to overtake from wrong
side. As a result of this, the tractor trolley overturned and a
passenger died on the spot and other passengers got injured.
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.
7. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 & 338 of IPC upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 32 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 2 witnesses were examined in defence. After
hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and
[2025:RJ-JD:12444] (3 of 5) [CRLR-422/2004]
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 &
304A of IPC vide judgment dated 07.01.2004. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned
Sessions Judge, Pali which was dismissed vide judgment dated
23.06.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep 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 2002. He had remained in jail for about 1 month & 4 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 2002 and he has languished in jail for
some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his
sentence.
9. 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 1 month &
4 days and except the present one no other case has been
registered against him.
10. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:12444] (4 of 5) [CRLR-422/2004]
below, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of
conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
11. 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 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 six months 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.
12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
23.06.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal
Appeal No.07/2004 & the judgment dated 07.01.2004 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Pali in
Criminal Case No.22/2003 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.
13. The fine amount is maintained. The amount of fine imposed
by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then
two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount
[2025:RJ-JD:12444] (5 of 5) [CRLR-422/2004]
before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
shall undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
14. The revision petition is allowed in part.
15. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
16. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
9-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
