Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aamin vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14757) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 398/2007
Aamin S/o Nizamudeen, R/o Somalpur, P.S. Ramgunj, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, learned
counsel Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore 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 Maulasar, District Deedwana Kuchaman wherein it is
mentioned that the petitioner Aamin is alive.
3. Heard.
4. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 23.04.2007 passed
by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deedwana,
District Nagaur, in Criminal Appeal No.1/2006 whereby the learned
appellate Court rejected the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 08.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in
[2025:RJ-JD:14757] (2 of 5) [CRLR-398/2007]
Original Criminal Case No.210/2003 whereby learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 337 IPC - Rs.200/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months' S.I.
5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
6. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 06.07.2003,
complainant Jafar Ali submitted a written report at Bangur Govt.
Hospital, Maulasar to the extent that on that day he along with
Kishor boarded a Rajasthan Patrika utility vehicle, when they
reached near Marudhar Hotel, the petitioner driving the vehicle at
high speed & negligently collided with a parked truck, causing the
utility vehicle to overturn. Due to which, Kishor died on the spot
and the complainant along with two other persons sustained
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.
7. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC upon denial
of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 16 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 in defence, certain documents were
exhibited. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused
[2025:RJ-JD:14757] (3 of 5) [CRLR-398/2007]
petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned
Trial Judge convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279,
337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 08.03.2006. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District
Nagaur which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.04.2007.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore, 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 2003. He had remained in jail for about 11 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 was 23 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 45 years and is
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.
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 11 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14757] (4 of 5) [CRLR-398/2007]
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.
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 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 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 dated 23.04.2007
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Deedwana, District Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.1/2006 & the
judgment dated 08.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(S.D.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Original
Criminal Case No.210/2003 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:14757] (5 of 5) [CRLR-398/2007]
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
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
21-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
