Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 792 (RAJ)

Guljar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-08

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), the accused-petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 23.03.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Sri Karanpur (for short, “the Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 41/1988, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the Judgment and order dated 22.08.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) whereby the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that on 26.01.1981, at about 1:15 PM, Smt. Jamna W/o deceased Vishna Ram Nayak lodged an FIR with Police Station. Sri Karanpur alleging therein that when she, alongwith her husband deceased Vishna Ram and their daughter Miss Chothi were going for marketing, near a radio shop, Truck No. RJF 3857 driven by the accused-petitioner came from behind and hit Vishna Ram, on account of which Vishna ram fell on the road and the wheel of the truck crushed his head and as a result of which Vishna Ram died on the spot. After investigation, the police filed Challan against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC. The trial Court framed charge against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, to which the petitioner denied and sought trial. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 22.08.1988, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as noticed above. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner stood dismissed vide impugned Judgment dated 23.03.1994. Hence, this criminal revision. 3. At the very out set, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction and he has confined his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. It has been contended that the petitioner has already under gone imprisonment for nearly five months; he has been facing protracted trial, appeal and revision for more than 25 years, i.e., since 1981 and, therefore, the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has already under gone imprisonment for nearly five months; he has been facing protracted trial, appeal and revision for more than 25 years, i.e., since 1981 and, therefore, the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below. 4. PW. 1 Smt. Jamna, the widow of deceased Vishna Ram is an eye-witness to the occurrence and, has stated that on the date of occurrence, she alongwith deceased and their daughter, was going to market; the truck driven by the petitioner hit her husband from behind and crushed his head, as a result of which her husband died on the spot. She had lodged the FIR Exhibit P-1 with the police station. 5. PW. 2 Ram Chandra stated that on 26.01.1981, he was informed that deceased Vishna Ram died in the accident. He is a witness to Furd-Lash Exhibit P-2 and Panchnama Exhibit P-3. 6. PW. 4 Soni Ram and PW. 9 Mehar Chand stated that on 26.01.1981, at about 12:45 PM, the truck driven by petitioner Guljar Singh hit a man, who died on the spot. They further stated that they were knowing truck driver petitioner Guljar Singh and, therefore, they have identified the petitioner. 7. PW. 5 Meeta Singh, ASI is the Investigating Officer who proved the investigation and various memos prepared by him. 8. Thus, from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner. There is concurrent findings of the facts by the Courts below and after going through the Judgment s passed by the Courts below, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity therein, which may require interference in revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in not assailing the conviction. 9. So far as point of quantum of sentence is concerned, in Lakshmanan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (Suppl. 2) JT 396 (SC), as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant therein, a lady was dragged to 22 feet and succumbed to the injuries. In that case, the Honble Supreme Court, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment. 2) JT 396 (SC), as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant therein, a lady was dragged to 22 feet and succumbed to the injuries. In that case, the Honble Supreme Court, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment. 10. In Laxmi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (3) RCrD 343 (Raj.), while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, this Court reduced the sentence to the period of 119 days imprisonment already undergone by the accused therein, who was driver of Dumper which hit the deceased after climbing over the heap of concrete lying four feet away the road-side. 10.11. In Shri Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) RDD 1248 (Raj.), considering the fact that the incident took place 25 years ago, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while maintaining the conviction for the offences under Section 304-A, 279 and 337, IPC, reduced the sentence to the period of 15 days imprisonment already undergone by the accused therein. 12. In the instant case the incident took place in the year 1981. The petitioner has faced the protracted trial, appeal and revision. At the time of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code on 14.01.1988, the trial Court recorded the age of the petitioner as 40 years, meaning thereby presently the petitioner is nearly 58 years in age. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for more than 4 months and 19 days. No previous conviction stands to his credit. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner; however, enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 15,000 /-. 13. In Chiman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) RCrD, 140 (Raj.), the incident took place in 1984. In that case, the concurrent findings of the Courts below were not challenged. Considering the fact that the petitioner therein faced trial since last 17 years, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period of 17 days imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner therein, however, enhancing the amount of fine to Rs. 15,000/-to be paid to the husband of the deceased. 14. Considering the fact that the petitioner therein faced trial since last 17 years, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period of 17 days imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner therein, however, enhancing the amount of fine to Rs. 15,000/-to be paid to the husband of the deceased. 14. Consequently the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to petitioner Guljar Singh S/o Niranjan Singh by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Case No. 161/1981 and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Karanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 41/1988, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The petitioner is granted three months time to deposit the amount of fine. The amount of fine, on being deposited, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The petitioner is on bail. The bail bonds stands discharged.