Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimal Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26458) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26458]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 365/2006
Vimal Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh Lal Meena, R/o Nalva Fala Talab,
PS Sadar Dungarpur (Raj.)
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samyak Dalal, amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
28/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 20.04.2006 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.24/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2002
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, in
Regular Criminal Case No.179/1999 by which the learned trial
Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 3 months
additional imprisonment
Sec. 304A IPC 2 years RI and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 6 months
additional imprisonment
[2025:RJ-JD:26458] (2 of 4) [CRLR-365/2006]
2. Both 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 15.03.1999,
complainant Harshvardhan Jain submitted a written report to SHO,
PS Kotwali, Dungarpur to the effect that a Jeep bearing No.RRT-
3328 hit his brother Chandra Prakash Jain. As a result of which,
his brother died on the spot. The incident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the jeep driver (present petitioner). On
this complaint, Police registered an FIR 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, 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as 15 witnesses were examined. Thereafter, an explanation
was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
for which he denied the same. In defence, one witness was
examined and certain documents were exhibited. Then, 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, 304A IPC
Act vide judgment dated 09.04.2002 and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 20.04.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:26458] (3 of 4) [CRLR-365/2006]
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 1999. He had
remained in jail for more than two 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 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 more than two
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26458] (4 of 4) [CRLR-365/2006]
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 09.04.2002
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in
Regular Criminal Case No.179/1999 and the judgment dated
20.04.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in
Criminal Appeal No.24/2002 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 amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if
any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the
petitioner fails deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo the
default sentence. 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
21-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
