Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhulla vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24776) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24776]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 591/2007
Dhulla S/o Naga R/o Gigla, P.S. Salumbar, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 28.06.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur, in
Criminal Appeal No.15/2007 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 18.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Case
No.36/1999 by which the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 338 IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months' S.I.
Section 184/192 6 months' S.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 months' S.I.
MV Act
Section 161 6 months' S.I. - -
Railway 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:24776] (2 of 4) [CRLR-591/2007]
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.1998 SHO,
Police Station Kheroda received a telephonic information that at
Gulab Nagar railway crossing mini truck has crashed on the
railway track and several dead bodies are lying near the railway
track. It is found that the accident happened due to negligence of
the truck driver and due to such accident around 18 persons died
on the spot and some other persons got injured. 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 and
Section 184/192 of Motor Vehicle Act and Section 161 of Railways
Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 25 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC
and Section 184/192 of Motor Vehicle Act and Section 161 of
Railways Act vide judgment dated 18.04.2001 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 28.06.2007. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:24776] (3 of 4) [CRLR-591/2007]
5. Learned counsel 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 1998. He had
remained in jail for about 6 months and 15 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 is facing trial
since the year 1998 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 6 months
and 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 and he is facing the rigor
for last 27 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:24776] (4 of 4) [CRLR-591/2007]
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 two years 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 28.06.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2,
Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2007 & the judgment dated
18.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Case
No.36/1999 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. The amount of fine imposed by the
trial Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then 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
27-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
