Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sawariya vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22041) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22041]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 924/2008
Sawariya S/o Sh. Kajod Bhil, R/o Pander, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Patodia
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 18.08.2008 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Camp Shahpura, (for
short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.10/2006 while
rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
24.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jahajpur, in Criminal Original Case No.337/1997 by which the
learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 279 IPC --- Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, one day's S.I.
Sec. 304-A IPC 3 months' SI ---
Sec. 3/181 of --- Rs.100/- and in default of
M.V. Act payment of fine, one day's S.I.
Sec. 134/187 of --- Rs.500/- and in default of
M.V. Act payment of fine, two days' 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:22041] (2 of 4) [CRLR-924/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 12.05.1997
complainant Satyanarayan submitted a report to the concerned
Police Station to the effect that his nephew were going to
Maganpura. In the way, a tractor driven by petitioner rashly and
negligently and hit his nephew. As a result of this accident, he
succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.65/1997 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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections
3/181 and 134/187 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the
accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many
as nine 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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections 3/181 and 134/187 of M.V. Act
vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 and sentenced him. Aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Camp Shahpura, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2008. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Patodia, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:22041] (3 of 4) [CRLR-924/2008]
and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time,
he implores that the incident took place in the year 1997. He had
remained in jail for about eighteen 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 1997 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 eighteen
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 has been facing
the rigor for last 28 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
[2025:RJ-JD:22041] (4 of 4) [CRLR-924/2008]
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 24.04.2006
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jahajpur, in
Criminal Original Case No.337/1997 and the judgment dated
18.08.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2
Camp Shahpura, in Criminal Appeal No.10/2006 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 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
28-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
