Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Narayan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13910) on 12 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13910]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 731/2006
Jai Narayan S/o Shri Purshottam Das, B/c Hajuri, R/o Talariya
Para, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 10.08.2006 passed
by the learned District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, (for short, "the
appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
06.04.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial
Magistrate Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.26/2003 by
which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 2 months' SI ----
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, seven days'
S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:13910] (2 of 4) [CRLR-731/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant Manoj
gave a written report to the concerned Police Station to the effect
that on 31.12.2002 he went to Resort for party alongwith Ajay and
Manish in his Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-19-T-1938. When
they reached near Village Khuhari, a jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-15-P-220 drove by the petitioner rashly and negligently hit
his jeep. As a result of this accident, passengers were injured and
out of which Ajay was succumbed to injuries. On this report, the
FIR No.01/2003 was lodged at concerned Police Station, against
the petitioner. 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 eight witnesses were examined and certain
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 exhibited certain documents. After hearing
the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the
accused for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC vide
judgment dated 06.04.2004 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the District
& Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 10.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. L.D. Khatri, representing the petitioner,
at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt
[2025:RJ-JD:13910] (3 of 4) [CRLR-731/2006]
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 fifteen 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 has been facing trial since the
year 2003 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 fifteen 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 22 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
[2025:RJ-JD:13910] (4 of 4) [CRLR-731/2006]
fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration 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 06.04.2004
passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate
Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.26/2003 and the judgment
dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge
Jaisalmer, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 are 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 is hereby maintained. Two months' time is
granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple
imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the
petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
to 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
22-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
