Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Champa Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22016) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1323/2008
Champa Lal S/o Shri Gopa Ram, by caste Ganchi, Aged about 40
years, R/o Village Novi, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, 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 02.12.2008 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bali, District Pali, (for short,
"the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.21/2004 while
rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
16.06.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Desuri, Pali in Criminal Original Case No.100/1994 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.100/- and in default of
payment of fine, one month's
S.I.
Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, two months'
S.I.
Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of
payment of fine, two months'
S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, five months'
S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:22016] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1323/2008]
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 28.12.1993
complainant Prabhu Ram submitted a report to the concerned
Police Station to the effect that on 28.12.1993 he alongwith some
other persons went to Parshuram Mahadev Temple in tractor while
returning from the temple, petitioner drove the tractor rashly and
negligently and the tractor was overturned. As a result of this
accident, passengers were injured and out of which some were
succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.119/1993 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
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as eighteen 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. In defence, one witness was examined as
DW-1. 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 vide judgment dated 16.06.2004 and
sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
[2025:RJ-JD:22016] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1323/2008]
preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bali,
District Pali, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
02.12.2008. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi, 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 1993. He had
remained in jail for about fifteen 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 1993 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 fifteen 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:22016] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1323/2008]
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 32 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 16.06.2004
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Desuri,
District Pali, in Criminal Original Case No.100/1994 and the
judgment dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge Bali, District Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.21/2004 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
[2025:RJ-JD:22016] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1323/2008]
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
30-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
