Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gordhanram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:15989) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:15989]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 176/2005
Gordhanram S/o Shri Kishanaram, R/o Deedwana, P.S.
Deedwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
[Lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Talat Bari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
26/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 15.02.2005 passed
by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Deedwana, in
Criminal Appeal No.38/2002 whereby the learned appellate court
affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence vide judgment
dated 14.03.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Criminal Case
No.177/1999. The details of the conviction and sentence are
hereinunder:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 338 IPC 1 year SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 3 months' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years' SI Rs.17,500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 6 months' SI
[2025:RJ-JD:15989] (2 of 4) [CRLR-176/2005]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.06.1999,
complainant Omprakash filed a written report at Police Station
Deedwana stating that at around 08:30 AM, while traveling in a tempo
being driven by Hiralal, a speeding jeep bearing registration No. RJ 21 C
2711 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the
tempo, as a result of which, the tempo overturned. Due to which, the
occupants of the tempo sustained injuried and Hiralal succumbed to
injuries at Bangad Hospital. On the basis of said report, the police
registered a case and commenced the investigation. After completion of
the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the
accused-petitioner. The learned trial court framed charge against the
petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC
and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced trial. During the
course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and
submitted 27 documents in support of their case. The accused-
petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied
the allegations against him and claimed trial. In defence, certain
documents were exhibited.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC vide its judgment and
order dated 14.03.2002. Being aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the
conviction and sentence before learned appellate court, whereby the
appellate court affirmed the conviction modified the sentence vide
judgment dated 15.02.2005.
[2025:RJ-JD:15989] (3 of 4) [CRLR-176/2005]
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 sentence 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 1999. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for more than one month. No other case
has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and
belongs to the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner was
aged about 20 years in 1999 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 46 years at present and has been 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 AAG 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 more than one month 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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:15989] (4 of 4) [CRLR-176/2005]
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 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 and sentence dated
14.03.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Criminal Case No.177/1999 and the
judgment dated 15.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional District &
Session Judge, Deedwana, in Criminal Appeal No.38/2002 are 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
amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by
the petitioner, then two months' time is granted to the petitioner to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of
fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment..
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
8-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
