Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pabu Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24867) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24867]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 641/2006
Pabu Singh S/o Uttam Singh, Resident of Mulana, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
(Lodged at Sub-Jail, Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Rao
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 20.07.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Balotra, District
Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No.10/2006 (09/2006) whereby the
learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2006 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, in Criminal Case
No.687/2000 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 304A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Sec.184, 132/187 & --- Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
134/187 of M.V. Act
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:24867] (2 of 4) [CRLR-641/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.01.1999,
complainant Bankaram gave a written report to the Police Station
to the effect that at one Chunaram was waiting for a bus at bus
stand. While he was crossing the road, he was hit by a tanker
registered as GJ-8-U-1083, which was being driven by the present
petitioner in a very rash and negligent manner. Chunaram was
taken to Dhorimanna for treatment, but he succumbed to injuries.
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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections 184,
132/184 & 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act and upon denial of guilt
by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as
many as 09 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 and then, 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 & 304A of IPC and Sections 184, 132/184 & 134/187
of Motor Vehicles Act vide judgment dated 19.02.2006 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 20.07.2006. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:24867] (3 of 4) [CRLR-641/2006]
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, 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 two months sixteen 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 Additional Advocate General 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 76
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24867] (4 of 4) [CRLR-641/2006]
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 incarceration for some days 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 dated
20.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track, Balotra, District Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No.10/2006
(09/2006) & the judgment dated dated 19.02.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, in Criminal
Case No.687/2000 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
22-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
