Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapooraram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14765) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14765]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 253/2005
Kapooraram S/o Chamanaji, R/o Barli Sadari, P.S. Sadari, District
Pali (Lodged in Central Jail Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
Mr. Talat Bari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 08.02.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2003
whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the
appellant and while acquitting the appellant for offences under Section
337 of IPC and Section 146/196 of M.V. Act, maintained his conviction
and sentence for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC as
awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalore in Criminal
Regular Case No.522/1997 vide judgment dated 14.02.2002. The
details of the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 1 month' RI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 10 days SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' RI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 10 days SI
[2025:RJ-JD:14765] (2 of 4) [CRLR-253/2005]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in police and judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
sentence.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25.01.1997,
complainant Mukesh Kumar Harijan submitted a written report at Police
Station Ahore stating therein that he was travelling in a jeep bearing
registration No. RJ 19/4665, which was being driven by Kapooraram
(the petitioner) in a rash and negligent manner. Due to negligent
driving, the said jeep overturned. As a result of which, the occupants of
the jeep including the complainant sustained severe injuries and one of
the occupant namely Madanlal succumbed to his injuries. On basis of
that report, the police registered a case against the accused-petitioner
under Section 279, 337, 304-A IPC and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. After completion of investigation, police filed a challan in the
aforesaid sections and charges were duly explained to the accused-
petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During
the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in
support of its case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalore after hearing the
arguments from both the parties, convicted the accused-petitioner for
offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and under Section
146/196 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him. Being aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal
against the judgment dated 14.02.2002 before learned Additional
Session Judge, Jalore, whereby the appellate court partly allowed the
appeal while acquitting the petitioner under Sections 337 of IPC and
146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act and maintained the conviction and
[2025:RJ-JD:14765] (3 of 4) [CRLR-253/2005]
sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated
08.02.2005.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta, 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 partly
allowed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he
implores that the incident took place in the year 1997. The accused-
petitioner had remained in custody for about six months. No other case
has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and
belongs to the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner is
facing trial since the year 1997 and he has languished in jail for some
time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned AAG though opposed the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has
remained behind the bars from for about six 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 appellate 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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14765] (4 of 4) [CRLR-253/2005]
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is two 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 14.02.2002 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalore in Criminal Regular
Case No.522/1997 and the judgment dated 08.02.2005 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in
Criminal Appeal No.26/2003 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence
awarded 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. The fine amount imposed by
the trial court is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the
trial court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months'
time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the
trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo
one month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds are canceled.
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
4-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
