Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rod Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26450) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26450]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2008
Rod Singh S/o Kishore Singh Rajput, R/o Ghighkad Thana
Khambnor District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
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 06.07.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Rajsamand, (for short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal
No.05/2007 while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment
of conviction dated 15.02.2006 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh District Rajsamand in
Criminal Original Case No.464/1999 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.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, fifteen days'
S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.400/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:26450] (2 of 4) [CRLR-115/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 02.11.1999
complainant Mohan Lal submitted a report at Police Station
Charbhuja, to the effect that while his father Lachharam was going
to visit complainant's house, a bus bearing registration No.RJ-30-
P-0485 driven by petitioner rashly and negligently hit his father. In
the said accident, he 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 279 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as eight 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 15.02.2006 and
sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge
(Fast Track) Rajsamand, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 06.07.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26450] (3 of 4) [CRLR-115/2008]
at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the
year 1999. He had remained in jail for certain period 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 certain period 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
fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
[2025:RJ-JD:26450] (4 of 4) [CRLR-115/2008]
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration 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 15.02.2006
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.464/1999
and the judgment dated 06.07.2007 passed by the learned Addl.
District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand, in Criminal
Appeal No.05/2007 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
29-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
