Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lal Shanker vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16221) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16221]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 588/2005
Lal Shanker S/o Velji, R/o Village Punali, P.S. Ganeshpura, Distt.
Dungarpur (Rajasthan)
[Lodged in District Jail, Dungarpur]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
Mr. Ankit Ghorela
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
27/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by the learned
Session Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.26/1998 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
against judgment dated 25.04.1998 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Dungarpur in Case No.83/1997 by which the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, 1 month SI
[2025:RJ-JD:16221] (2 of 4) [CRLR-588/2005]
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 11.01.1997,
complainant lodged an oral report at concerned Police Station alleging
that on 10.01.1997 at about 09:30 PM, when he was traveling in a jeep
bearing registration No.RJ 12 C 0735 being driven by the present
petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, the jeep overturned and the
occupants of the said jeep sustained injuries and one passenger namely
Bhema succumbed to injuries in Dungarpur, Hospital. On the basis of
this oral report, the police commenced the investigation and after
completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet. The
learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial,
the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and submitted
certain 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, one witness was examined.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections
279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC vide order dated 25.04.1998. Being
aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner
preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned
Session Judge, Dungarpur, whereby the appellate court dismissed the
appeal vide judgment dated 13.07.2005.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:16221] (3 of 4) [CRLR-588/2005]
the incident took place in the year 1997. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 15 days. 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 35 years in 1997 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 63 years at present and has been facing trial
since the year 1997 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 about 15 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. 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:16221] (4 of 4) [CRLR-588/2005]
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.1998 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dungarpur in Criminal Case
No.83/1997 and the judgment dated 13.07.2005 passed by the learned
Session Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.26/1998 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
fine amount imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. 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
231-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
