Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhuralal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23360) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23360]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 679/2005
Bhuralal S/o Goniya Yadav, R/o Phophali Bor, Police Station
Chitri, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 18.07.2005 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge Dungarpur, (for short, "the
appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.44/2003 while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
18.08.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Sagwara, in Regular Criminal Case No.200/1999 by which the
learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 1 month's S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 1 month's S.I.
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' Rs.500/- and in default of
S.I. payment of fine, 1 month's S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year's SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 2 months' S.I.
Sec.3 & 4 R/w --- Rs.100/- for each offence and in
180 & 181 of default of payment of fine,
M.V. Act seven days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:23360] (2 of 5) [CRLR-679/2005]
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 28.02.1999
complainant Devshankar submitted a written report to the
concerned Police Station to the effect that he alongwith some
other individuals went to their village in jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-12-C-1288, which was driven by petitioner rashly and
negligently, resulting in the vehicle overturning and the
passengers were sustained injuries. As a result of this accident,
one Kamji 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 R/w Sections 180 & 181 of M.V. Act and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as six 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, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Sections
3 & 4 R/w Sections 180 & 181 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated
18.08.2003 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of
[2025:RJ-JD:23360] (3 of 5) [CRLR-679/2005]
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions
Judge Dungarpur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
18.07.2005. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh, 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 1999. He had remained in jail for about seventy-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 Seventy-
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23360] (4 of 5) [CRLR-679/2005]
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
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 18.08.2003
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sagwara, in
Regular Criminal Case No.200/1999 and the judgment dated
18.07.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dungarpur, in
Criminal Appeal No.44/2003 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 two months' simple imprisonment. The
fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be
[2025:RJ-JD:23360] (5 of 5) [CRLR-679/2005]
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
12-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
