Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surja Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14152) on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14152]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1307/2007
Surja Ram S/o Rekha Ram, B/c Jaat, Aged 62 years, R/o Ringas,
Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rekha Sankhla for
Mr. Hastimal Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
17/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 22.08.2007 passed
by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu
in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007 (12/1999) whereby the learned
appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 19.07.1999 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sujangarh,
in Criminal Case No.232/1990 and while setting aside the
conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 3/181 of MV
Act, affirmed his conviction for offence under Sections 279, 304A
IPC. Details of the sentence is as under :-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 304A IPC 2 years SI and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
[2025:RJ-JD:14152] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2007]
2. Both 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 10.05.1990,
complainant Tolaram gave an oral information to SHO, PS Sandwa
to the effect that a private bus bearing No.RJP 1355 coming from
Nokha side in a rash and negligent manner, hit his nephew
Dharmaram. As a result of which, Dharmaram died. Upon the
aforesaid report, 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, 304A IPC & 3/181 of MV Act and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as 10 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 has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 279, 304A of IPC & 3/181 of MV Act vide
judgment dated 19.07.1999 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was partly
allowed vide judgment dated 22.08.2007. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset
submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
[2025:RJ-JD:14152] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2007]
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and
modified by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1990. He had
remained in jail for about five months 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 46 years old at the time of
incident, now, he is aged about 81 years and has been facing trial
since the year 1990 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 five months
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 35 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:14152] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2007]
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 and sentence dated
19.07.1999 passed by the learned J Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Sujangarh in Criminal Case No.232/1990
and the judgment dated 22.08.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal
Appeal No.12/2007 (12/1999) are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the courts below for offence under Sections
279, 304A IPC 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 amount before the trial
court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner
shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine amount,
he shall undergo the default sentence. 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
171-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
