Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14761) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14761]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 859/2006
Shiv Singh S/o Sh. Nahar Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident of
Village Shiv Singh Ka Guda, Police Station Khamnor, Tehsil
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
(Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
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 12.09.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2006 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 08.05.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Regular
Case No.412/1995 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 Days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.500/- 5 Days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 Days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 134/187 __ __ ___ Rs.500/- 5 Day's S.I.
M.V. Act
[2025:RJ-JD:14761] (2 of 5) [CRLR-859/2006]
2. All 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 19.08.1994,
complainant Ladu Singh gave an oral report at Banuram Hospital
at Nathdwara to the effect that he was travelling in a dumper
bearing No.RJ-27-G-0453, which was being driven by the present
petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. The said dumper hit a
truck to its rear side, which was coming from opposite side in its
right direction. As a result of which, the said dumper overturned
and the occupants sitting therein, including the complainant,
sustained severe injuries and some of them 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 134/187 & 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 30 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, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC and Section 134/187
of Motor Vehicle Act vide judgment dated 08.05.2006 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
[2025:RJ-JD:14761] (3 of 5) [CRLR-859/2006]
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions
Judge which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2006. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Pradeep Shah, 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 1994. He had remained in jail for eight (8) 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 24 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 55 years and is
facing trial since the year 1994 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 eight (8) 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:14761] (4 of 5) [CRLR-859/2006]
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 31 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.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 12.09.2006
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.18/2006 & the judgment dated
08.05.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case
No.412/1995 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. Three 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14761] (5 of 5) [CRLR-859/2006]
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
13-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
