Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 894 (RAJ)

Bagga Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 22.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in Cr. Appeal No. 35/2002, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order dated 13.09.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anupgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No. 328/1996, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused- petitioner as under : Under Section 279 IPC : Six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 304-A IPC : Two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, are that on 06.11.1996 at 8:10 A.M., one Shrawan Ram (PW.4) submitted a report to the Police Station, Anupgarh, stating therein that he is living separately from his father in Chak No.12 LSM and cultivating the filed of Baltej Singh. It is also stated that today morning Baltej Singh and his father Chanan Singh came in a tractor bearing No. RNC-622 along with trolly, wherein cotton was loaded. Baltej Singh asked the complainant to accompany them, upon which he went with them and sat on the trolley. On reaching Salempur, Baltej Singh took 5 liters of diesel in his tractor and when they were on right side, at 17 SJM Bus Stand, a truck with high speed came behind them and dashed their trolley. Chanan Singh was run over by the said truck and succumbed to injuries on the spot. It is also stated that Baltej Snigh also received injuries, he became unconscious and the complainant sent him to the hospital in a jeep. 3. After receiving the aforesaid report, FIR No.457/1996 was registered at Police Station, Anupgarh for the offences punishable under sections 279, 304-A IPC. The investigation was commenced and during investigation, Baltej Singh also succumbed to injuries. After completion of investigation, the police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the trial court and the trial court framed the charges against him for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The investigation was commenced and during investigation, Baltej Singh also succumbed to injuries. After completion of investigation, the police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the trial court and the trial court framed the charges against him for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The accused petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, had produced as many as 9 witnesses and also got exhibited 18 documents. The accused-petitioner got his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC. 5. The trial court after analyzing the evidence adduced before it, has convicted the accused-petitioner as aforesaid vide impugned judgment dated 13.09.2002. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, however, the appellate court while affirming the judgment of the trial court, has dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2002. Hence, this revision petition. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioner passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. However, in respect of the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the incident took place in the year 1996 and, therefore, it will be very harsh to send the petitioner behind the bars after 20 years in the year 2016. It is submitted that after the order passed by the appellate court, the petitioner remained in custody for more than a month and his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2002 and since then he is on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner. He has further submitted that if this Court deems fit, the fine awarded by the courts below may be enhanced suitably. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. He has further submitted that if this Court deems fit, the fine awarded by the courts below may be enhanced suitably. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the records of both the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that so far as conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned, it is well founded and the counsel for the petitioner has rightly not pressed this revision petition on merits. In view of this, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence at length. 9. So far as sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court is concerned, I am of the opinion that after 20 years, it will be very harsh to send the petitioner behind the bars. The incident is of the year 1996 and as per the charge-sheet, the age of the petitioner was 32 years at the time of incident. After twenty years, the petitioner might have settled in his life. The offence for which, the petitioner has been convicted, is not involving moral turpitude. Hence, looking to over all facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, to meet the ends of justice, the fine imposed by the courts below should be enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Impugned judgments dated 22.10.2002 and 13.09.2002 passed by the appellate court and the trial court respectively are maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the courts below is enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with the trial court within a period of four months from today and the trial court shall disburse the same to the dependents of deceased Chanan Singh and Baltej Singh euqally. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of fine as directed above within the time granted, he shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 11. The impugned judgments are modified accordingly. 12. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of fine as directed above within the time granted, he shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 11. The impugned judgments are modified accordingly. 12. Records of both the courts below be sent forthwith.