Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23378) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23378]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 184/2006
Shiv Ram S/o Chhoga ram, R/o Kiroda P.S. Degana, District
Nagaur (Lodged at Sub-Jail, Parbatsar, in the process of transfer
to Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
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 28.02.2006 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Parbatsar,
District Nagaur, in Criminal Appeal No.22/2003 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
against judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil
Judge [J.D.] & Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Makrana, District
Nagaur in Criminal Regular Case No.29/2000 by which the learned
trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year SI
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:23378] (2 of 4) [CRLR-184/2006]
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.11.2000, the
complainant Ganpat Lal submitted a written report at the concerned
Police Station alleging that at around 10:00 AM, while he and Bankat Lal
were travelling to Barnel on a motorcycle, a bus bearing
registration No.RJ-06-P-0029 coming from Parbatsar being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, hit both of them, as a result of which they
sustained grievous injuries. Bankat Lal, who was referred to Ajmer
Hospital, died on the way. On the basis of this report an FIR was
registered and the police commenced the investigation and after
completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet. The
learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial, the
prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and submitted certain
documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations
against him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections
279, 337, 304-A of IPC vide order dated 17.12.2003. Being aggrieved
by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an
appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, whereby the
appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.02.2006.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Praveen Vyas, 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 2000. The accused-petitioner had been
[2025:RJ-JD:23378] (3 of 4) [CRLR-184/2006]
in judicial custody for about 03 months. No other case has been
reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to
the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner was aged
about 32 years in 2000 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 57 years at present and has been facing trial
since the year 2000 and he has languished in jail for some time,
therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned AAG 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 03 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 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
[2025:RJ-JD:23378] (4 of 4) [CRLR-184/2006]
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2003 passed
by learned Civil Judge [J.D.] & Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Makrana, District Nagaur in Criminal Regular Case No.29/2000 and the
judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, in Criminal Appeal
No.22/2003 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 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
14-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
