Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2097 (RAJ)

Kesar Deo @ Kesu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-11

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kesar Deo @ Kesu Ram S/o Surja Ram, resident of Diloi, Police Station, Mandawa, District Sri Ganganagar under Section 397 read with sect 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.9.1997 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge NO.2, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.1/1997 by which the appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 122.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (SD)-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Suratgarh in Cr. Original Case No.132/87 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 304 A and 279 IPC and he was punished in following manner: Under Section 304A IPC One year’s RI and fine of Rs.2000/-in default of payment of fine 2 months imprisonment. Under Section 279 IPC Three months RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine one month’s imprisonment 2. As per facts of the case complainant Tulchha Ram lodged an oral report on 19.2.1987 at 2.30 p.m. in the Police Station Suratgarh alleging therein that when he was sitting in his Mohallha one Jonga Jeep No.RJV 4561 driven by the petitioner came with the high speed and negligently collided with one Happy who was 5 years of age standing on the right side of the road. The parents of Happy came on spot but due to that accident the driver of the vehicle took the injured to the hospital. On his oral report, initially the case was registered under Section 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station Suratgarh but after the death of Happy due to the injuries sustained in the accident, Section 304A of IPC was added and after investigation, challan was filed. 3. In the trial, after recording statements of 10 prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was convicted for aforesaid offences and sentenced for one year RI for offence under Section 302 IPC and 3 months imprisonment under Section 279 IPC was inflicted against him. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide its judgment dated 12.3.1997 but the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.9.1997 and in this revision petition both the judgments are under challenge. 5. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide its judgment dated 12.3.1997 but the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.9.1997 and in this revision petition both the judgments are under challenge. 5. At the threshold the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that incident took place in the year 1987, therefore it is not proper to send the petitioner behind the bards after 27 years in the year 2014. The petitioner was taken into custody after the judgment of appellate court on 16.9.1997 and his sentence was suspended by this Court on 26.9.1997 and since then, he is on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of accident, the petitioner was of 25 years of age and now he is more than 50 years of age, therefore, he may be granted benefit of probation because no previous incident is reported prior to the judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment reported in 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 267 : Fakroodeen vs. State and submits that this revision petition may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that it is not a fit case in which benefit of probation is to be given to the petitioner. In the instant case a boy of 5 years of age died due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that after 27 years it is not proper to send the petitioner behind the bars but at the same time, I deemed it proper to award compensation. 10. Consequently to secure the ends of justice, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 304A and 279 IPC, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced therefore already undergone. However, I deem it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the parents of the deceased Happy. 10. Consequently to secure the ends of justice, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 304A and 279 IPC, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced therefore already undergone. However, I deem it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the parents of the deceased Happy. Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/-within a period of 3 months in the learned trial court and after depositing the amount, the learned trial court shall disburse the same therefore the parents of deceased Happy.