Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heera Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16043) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16043]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 639/2006
Heera Lal S/o Shri Nathu, By Caste Rawat (Meena), Resident of
Sotia, Police Station Kurabad, District Udaipur.
(Lodged in District Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav with
Mr. Ankit Ghorela
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
26/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand,
in Criminal Appeal No.39/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
20.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Criminal Case No.08/1995 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 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.2,000/- 20 days' 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:16043] (2 of 4) [CRLR-639/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 08.11.1994,
complainant Laxman Dangi gave an oral report to the Police at Police
Station Delwara, to the effect that he was travelling from Ajmer to
Udaipur in a video-coach bus bearing No.RJ-27-P-0864 being driven
by the present petitioner Heeral Lal very recklessly and in a rash and
negligent manner. Upon reaching Majera Ka Pulia, the bus collided
with a jeep bearing No.RJ-27C-510 coming from opposite side. Due
to the collision, the occupants of the jeep sustained severe injuries
and out of them, five persons succumbed to 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.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 20 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 vide judgment dated 20.10.2005 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 18.07.2006. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:16043] (3 of 4) [CRLR-639/2006]
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Mudit Vaishnav, 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 about twelve 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 21 years old at the time of incident, now he is
aged about 52 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 twelve 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 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,
[2025:RJ-JD:16043] (4 of 4) [CRLR-639/2006]
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 18.07.2006
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.39/2005 & the judgment dated
20.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.08/1995 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. 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
25-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
