Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalip Singh vs State on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 840/2003
Dalip Singh S/o Shri Sadeek Mohammed, B/c Musalman, R/o
Village Kagdana, PS Nathusari Chopta, Tehsil and District Sirsa,
Haryana.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DL Mothsra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 18.08.2003 passed
by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.72/2001 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 10.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Regular
Criminal Case No.1/1997 by which the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence
Sec. 279 IPC 6 months RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 337 IPC 6 months RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI
Sec. 338 IPC 1 year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 20 days SI
Sec. 304A IPC 2 years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 2 months SI
(2 of 4) [CRLR-840/2003]
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 20.12.1996,
injured Rajpal gave a parcha bayan to the SHO, PS Nohar at
Government Hospital, Nohar to the effect that he was travelling in
a Jeep bearing No.HR-20-C-0948, which was overturned due to
rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. As a result of which,
the occupants of the jeep including the complainant sustained
multiple injuries. On the basis of the said parcha bayan, 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, 304A IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined.
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 has
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338,
304A IPC Act vide judgment dated 10.10.2001 and sentenced him
as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which
was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2003. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
(3 of 4) [CRLR-840/2003]
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 1996. He had
remained in jail for about three months 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 one month
& twenty-two 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 29 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
(4 of 4) [CRLR-840/2003]
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 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 10.10.2001
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar,
District Hanumangarh in Regular Criminal Case No.1/1997 and the
judgment dated 18.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal
No.72/2001 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
amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already
deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails
deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo the default sentence.
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
4-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
