Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bajrang Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26427) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26427]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1307/2008
Bajrang Lal S/o Mathuradas Rawat, R/o Gosunda, P.S.
Chanderiya, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Bachhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 10.12.2008 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, (for short, "the
appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.14/2008 while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
14.08.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Chittorgarh, in Criminal Case No.760/2005 by which the learned
trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 2 Years' RI Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, six months'
S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:26427] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.07.1999
complainant Smt. Shanta submitted a report at concerned Police
Station, to the effect that at about 6.15 A.M. she went to the city
with her husband on the moped. When they reached near Ramkui,
a Jeep driven by accused petitioner rashly and negligently hit their
moped. In the said accident, they sustained injures and her
husband succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR was lodged
at concerned Police Station, against the petitioner. 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 337, 279 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as fifteen witnesses were examined and
certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was
sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for
which he denied the same. After hearing the learned counsel for
the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for
offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment
dated 14.08.2008 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment
of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge
Chittorgarh, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
10.12.2008. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mudhit Bachhawat, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:26427] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2008]
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. He had remained in jail for about five 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 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 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 five 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 26 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26427] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1307/2008]
fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration 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 14.08.2008
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh, in
Criminal Case No.760/2005 and the judgment dated 10.12.2008
passed by the learned Sessions Judge Chittorgarh, in Criminal
Appeal No.14/2008 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 is
hereby maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if
any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not to 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
31-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
