Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sava @ Shivlal Bheel vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24777) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1045/2006
Sava @ Shivlal Bheel S/o Nathu Bheel, Resident of Balara, Police
Station Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
(Lodged at District Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 07.03.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, in
Criminal Appeal No.02/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 20.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate, Chittorgarh, in Criminal Case No.103/1997 by which
the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. ---- ----
Section 337 IPC 6 months' S.I. ---- ----
Section 338 IPC 6 months' S.I. ---- ----
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:24777] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1045/2006]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 28.03.1997,
complainant Ranglal (P.W.-1) gave an oral report to the A.S.I. at
Government Hospital, Chittorgarh to the effect that at around
1:30 A.M., while traveling from Chittorgarh to his village in
Matador Vehicle No.RJ-27-G-3051, an accident occurred near
Dobje. The Matador, being driven by the present petitioner,
overturned after the driver lost control, due to high speed and
appearance of two oncoming vehicles. As a result of which, several
passengers sustained injuries and Ranglal's son died at the scene.
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 15 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
20.12.2005 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24777] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1045/2006]
dated 07.03.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Manish Pitaliya, 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 1997. He had remained in jail for eight months 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 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 Additional Advocate General 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 eight
months 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 28 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.
[2025:RJ-JD:24777] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1045/2006]
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 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 07.03.2006
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, in
Criminal Appeal No.02/2006 & the judgment dated 20.12.2005
passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,
Chittorgarh, in Criminal Case No.103/1997 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
waived. 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
24-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
