Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balu Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14736) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14736]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 583/2007
Balu Ram S/o Onkar R/o Rampuriya P.S. Asind, Disrict Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/03/2025
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, learned
counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma 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 Asind, District Bhilwara wherein it is mentioned that
the petitioner Balu Ram is alive.
3. Heard.
4. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 25.06.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara
in Criminal Appeal No.04/2007 whereby the learned appellate
Court rejected the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Asind, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.51/2004
[2025:RJ-JD:14736] (2 of 5) [CRLR-583/2007]
whereby learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. - -
Section 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
5. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
6. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 23.02.2004,
complainant Jairam Kumawat submitted a report to SHO, Police
Station Asind at PHC, Rayla to the extent that on that day his wife
was at the well & his daughter was playing at the well. At that
time, a tractor being driven by the petitioner rashly and
negligently hit complainant's daughter due to which she got
injured and later on passed away. 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 & 304-A of IPC upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 11 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. 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 13.12.2006.
[2025:RJ-JD:14736] (3 of 5) [CRLR-583/2007]
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District
Bhilwara which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.06.2007.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, 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 2004. He had remained in jail for about 5 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 44 years and is
facing trial since the year 2004 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 5 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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:14736] (4 of 5) [CRLR-583/2007]
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 21 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 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.
12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District
Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.04/2007 & the judgment dated
13.12.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Asind, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.51/2004 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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:14736] (5 of 5) [CRLR-583/2007]
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
24-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
