Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhikaram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:14738) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14738]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 565/2007
Bhikaram S/o Kolaji R/o Sankad, P.S. Karda, Tehsil Raniwara,
District Jalore. ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
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 21.06.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in
Criminal Appeal No.21/2007 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 02.03.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Raniwara, District Jalore in Criminal Original Case
No.77/1999 by which the 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.100/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.200/- 2 months' S.I.
Section 3/181 of - Rs.200/- 15 days' S.I.
Motor Vehicle Act
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:14738] (2 of 4) [CRLR-565/2007]
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.01.1999,
complainant Mafaram submitted a written report at Police Station
Raniwara to the extent that on that day he along with his uncle
were going towards their field. On their way to field a jeep coming
from behind at a very high speed hit his uncle due to which, his
uncle fell down received injuries. Upon the aforesaid report of the
complainant, 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 &
Section 3/181 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 8
witnesses were examined and various 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, one witness was examined. 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 & Section
3/181 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 02.03.2007 and sentenced
him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
Judge which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.06.2007. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
[2025:RJ-JD:14738] (3 of 4) [CRLR-565/2007]
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and dismissed by the learned appellate court,
but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in
the year 1999. He had remained in jail for about 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 35 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 61 years and is
facing trial since the year 1999 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 about 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.
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 26 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,
[2025:RJ-JD:14738] (4 of 4) [CRLR-565/2007]
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 one 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 21.06.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District
Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.21/2007 & the judgment dated
02.03.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Raniwara, District Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.77/1999 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
22-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
