Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kulvinder Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22031) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22031]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1125/2006
Kulvinder Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh, R/o Gaggarpur, Police
Station Gulla, District Kaithat, Haryana.
(Presently lodged at District Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
07/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in
Criminal Appeal No.30/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
16.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.44/1999 by which the
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 months' S.I.
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:22031] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1125/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 24.10.1998,
complainant Dharmendra Singh submitted a written report at Police
Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara to the effect that he along with
14 passengers travelling in a Jeep bearing No.GUZ-7426 from
Shahpura towards Nokha. When the jeep reached near Super Mill, a
truck bearing No.RJ-02-G-3229 being driven by the present
petitioner, coming from wrong side hit the jeep, as a result of which
5 passengers died on the spot and some of them were taken to the
hospital for treatment. Upon the aforesaid information, 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, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and some
documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought
from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he
denied the same. In defence, some documents were exhibited and
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, 338 &
304A of IPC vide judgment dated 16.12.2005 and sentenced him as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. DN Yadav, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and
[2025:RJ-JD:22031] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1125/2006]
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 1998. He had
remained in jail for two months and ten days 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 was 20 years old at the time
of incident, now he is aged about 47 years and is facing trial since
the year 1998 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 two months and ten 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 27
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22031] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1125/2006]
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 16.11.2006
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District
Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.30/2005 & the judgment dated
16.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.44/1999
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. 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
16-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
