Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Punamsingh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16217) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16217]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 959/2005
Punamsingh S/o Satyanarayan Singh R/o Police Line, Raika
Bagh, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
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 09.11.2005 passed
by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Jodhpur in
Criminal Appeal No.49/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 17.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.252/2002 by which
the 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.500/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 months' S.I.
Section 134/187 of - Rs.200/- 5 days' S.I.
Motor Vehicle Act
[2025:RJ-JD:16217] (2 of 5) [CRLR-959/2005]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2000
complainant Khimaram submitted a written report at the scene of
the incident stating that at about 5 PM he was standing at a shop
when a jeep-taxi coming from Boranada being driven rashly and
negligently collided forcefully with a luna moped coming from the
opposite direction. Due to such accident, Bhirmaram (deceased)
along with his luna got stuck in front of the jeep and the jeep
driver dragged him for about 150 ft. before stopping. Thereafter,
Bhirmaram and luna were pulled out with help of passersby.
Bhirmaram was taken to the hospital where he died. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as 12 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. 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 134/187 of M.V. Act vide
judgment dated 17.01.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
[2025:RJ-JD:16217] (3 of 5) [CRLR-959/2005]
appeal before the learned appellate Judge which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 09.11.2005. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, 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 dismissed by the learned appellate court,
but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in
the year 2000. He had remained in jail for about 2 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 25 years old
at the time of incident, now he is aged about 50 years and is
facing trial since the year 2000 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 2 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
[2025:RJ-JD:16217] (4 of 5) [CRLR-959/2005]
for last 25 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 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 09.11.2005
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2,
Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.49/2004 & the judgment dated
17.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.252/2002 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:16217] (5 of 5) [CRLR-959/2005]
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
234-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
