Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangala Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14742) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14742]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 836/2006
Mangala Ram S/o Sh. Kana Ji, B/c Bishnoi, Resident of Paldi
Solankian, Tehsil- Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Talat Bari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
19/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 31.08.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal District- Jalore, in
Criminal Appeal No.16/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 23.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Sanchore, District Jalore, in Criminal Original Case
No.518/2001 by which the 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/- 7 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year and 6 Rs.1,000/- 15 days' S.I.
months' S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:14742] (2 of 4) [CRLR-836/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 25.09.2001,
complainant Balwant Singh gave a written report to the Police at
Police Station Sarwana, to the effect that he and his mother were
standing at bus stand, Khasrvi Dhora, where his mother was hit by
a bus bearing registration No.RNQ-2525, which was driven by the
present petitioner Mangla Ram, as a result of which, his mother
sustained multiple severe injuries and during treatment, she died.
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.
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 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 convicted the accused for offence
under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated
23.06.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 31.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Talat Bari, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14742] (3 of 4) [CRLR-836/2006]
and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time,
he implores that the incident took place in the year 2001. He had
remained in jail thirty six (36) 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 33 years old at the time of incident,
now he is aged about 57 years and is facing trial since the year
2001 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 thirty six (36)
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 is facing the rigor
for last 24 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14742] (4 of 4) [CRLR-836/2006]
has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of one year and 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.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 31.08.2006
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District
Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.16/2006 & the judgment dated
23.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Sanchore, District Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.518/2001 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. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is
hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
12-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
