Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 244 (RAJ)

Pooran Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-28

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 03.09.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.3/1995 affirming the judgment dated 28.03.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore in Criminal Case No.514/1993 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and was sentenced under:- Under Section.279 I.P.C.: Three month's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section.304A I.P.C.: One year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.1993, at about 11.00 a.m., complainant Ramesh Kumar presented himself before the SHO, P.S. Sancore and submitted a report alleging therein that on that day, at about 10.30 a.m., when he was going to Sanchore from his dhani, then a bus bearing registration No.RNP 2808, being driven rashly and negligently, hit his cousin sister Gulab ( cqvk dh csVh ), near Chungi Naka No.2 at Barmer Road, Sanchore,who was coming there for giving meal to his aunty ( cqvk ). She died at the spot. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered by the police and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed challan before the learned court below. After that, charges for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC were framed against the petitioner to which he denied and claimed trial. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited documents. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and even after availing opportunity to lead evidence, did not lead any evidence. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 28.03.1995, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.03.1995, the petitioner-accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.1997. 6. Again dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the petitioner-accused has preferred this revision petition, which was admitted for hearing vide order dated 12.09.1997 and the record of both the courts below was called for. 7. I have heard Mr. HS Balot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor. 8. 6. Again dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the petitioner-accused has preferred this revision petition, which was admitted for hearing vide order dated 12.09.1997 and the record of both the courts below was called for. 7. I have heard Mr. HS Balot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the conviction but submitted that the petitioner-accused is 45 years old person and that the matter is more than 21 years old, he has remained in custody for about 11 days and that he is facing persistent agony of protracted trial, his sentence may be reduced to already undergone. He placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court rendered in Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 388] . 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that a eight year old girl has expired in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Therefore, this court should not adopt a lenient view in this regard. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the conviction, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is upheld. 12. Now, while coming to the question regarding the sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the sentence already undergone. 13. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court, while considering the fact situation of that case, reduced the sentence to the sentence already undergone. However, while looking to the facts of this case, I deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet if sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the fine amount may be enhanced to be paid to the father/mother or legal representatives of the deceased. 14. However, while looking to the facts of this case, I deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet if sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the fine amount may be enhanced to be paid to the father/mother or legal representatives of the deceased. 14. In view the above and looking to over-all circumstances, especially the fact that the petitioner suffered persistent agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 27 years, the petitioner's conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained and to meet the ends of justice, I deem it proper to increase the amount of fine from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the father/mother of deceased or legal representatives of deceased and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone subject to payment of fine. The aforesaid fine is to be deposited by the petitioner in the trial court within two months from the date of the order and on such deposit the said amount shall be made available to the father/mother of deceased or legal representatives of the deceased. In default of such deposit, this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed and the petitioner convict will be taken in custody to serve the remaining sentence.The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision Disposed of. *******