Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1006 (RAJ)

Panna Lal v. State

2015-05-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 27.11.2001 passed by Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Hatyakand), Jaipur in cr. case no. 35/2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the judgment dated 17.6.1998 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) & Judl. Magistrate No.12, Jaipur city, Jaipur whereby learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under: U/s. 279 IPC: Sentenced to 4 months SI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI. U/s. 304-A IPC: Sentenced to one year SI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month SI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that PW-1 Rampal has submitted his written report dated 2.5.1992 in the police station Vishwakarma, jaipur mentioning therein that on 2.5.1992 the deceased Suwalal and he were coming from their house and going to their work of place at Road No.9, Vishwakarma Factory at 7.25 am in the morning. When they reached at Road no.12 near the Petrol Pump one Roadways bus came from the back side and hit the deceased Suwalal and the driver of the bus rushed the bus for Jaipur. The deceased Suwa Lal was died on the spot. 3. Upon this report, the police Station Vishwakarma registered the case being FIR No.123/1992 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and started investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC before the court of learned Judl. Magistrate No.12, Jaipur city, Jaipur. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. The accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 17.6.1998. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 17.6.1998, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of learned Distt. The prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 17.6.1998. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 17.6.1998, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of learned Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur which was lateron transferred to the court of Learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Hatyakand), Jaipur who vide judgment dated 27.11.2001 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 17.6.1998. 5. Against the said judgment dated 27.11.2001, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that accused petitioner has remained in custody for approximately 17 days , the occurrence took place on 2.5.1992, he is facing trial since long, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, he is approximately 65 years old person having children in his family of marriageable age, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the petitioner should neither be released on probation nor the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that accused petitioner has remained in custody for approximately 17 days, he is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 10. 10. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand canceled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the Appellate court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.