Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nisar Mohd vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23394) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23394]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 681/2007
Nisar Mohd. S/o Ali Khan R/o Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Rathore
Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
14/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 12.07.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bhilwara, Camp
Shahpura in Criminal Appeal No.17/2005 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 22.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal
Case No.177/1988 by which the trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.500/- 3 months' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 15 days' S.I.
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:23394] (2 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007]
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.1988
complainant Kanaram submitted a report at Police Station Phuliyan
Kalan to the extent that at about 4.30 PM he was standing at
Arvad Circle at that time a jeep coming from Shahpura being
driven rashly and negligently overturned. Due to which, one
passenger died and other passengers 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 13 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. Thereafter, two witnesses were
examined in defence. 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 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated
22.03.2001 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
12.07.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. H.S. Rathore, 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:23394] (3 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007]
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 1988. He had remained in jail for about 40 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 1988 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 40 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 37 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 petitioner
has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum
[2025:RJ-JD:23394] (4 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007]
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 12.07.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, Camp
Shahpura in Criminal Appeal No.17/2005 & the judgment dated
22.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.177/1988 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
28-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
