Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 906 (RAJ)

Saheb Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Saheb Singh s/o Balkar Singh @ Bal Karan Singh resident of Sujkhalpur, Police Station and Tehsil Hindumalkode District Sriganganagar, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.RC. against the judgment dated 7/6/2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in criminal appeal no. 18/2003 by which the appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 24/3/2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) Anoopgarh in criminal case no. 82/96, whereby, the accused petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 304-A and 279 IPC and he was visited with the punishment in the following manner:- Under Section 279 IPC : One month R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7 days additional imprisonment. Under Section 304-A IPC : 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days additional imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one FIR dated 11/3/1996 was lodged by P.W.3 - Hakam Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh inter alia indicating that fie along with Mukhtiar Singh, Teja Singh & Baldeo Singh were going from Anoopgarh to their village; they were taking tea near bus stand 87 GB; one Pratap Singh resident of 6 APM came and took wheat from flour mill of Labh Singh and was loading on to his cart, when all of a sudden Bus No.RJ-13-P-0098 came rashly and hit Pratap Singh, who fell down. The driver of the bus stopped the vehicle and he along with 2-3 persons came and took Pratap Singh in the bus for taking him to the hospital, they followed the bus and found the same at Bus stand Sameja Kothi and found Pratap Singh lying dead in the bus with his legs bleeding. Pratap Singh died on account of being run over by the bus. On the report, the Police registered a case and started investigation. After investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner. During trial, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses in all, where after, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on conclusion of the trial the Judicial Magistrate by judgment dated 24/3/2001 convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and passed the sentence as indicated hereinbefore. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses in all, where after, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on conclusion of the trial the Judicial Magistrate by judgment dated 24/3/2001 convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and passed the sentence as indicated hereinbefore. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, however, the appellate court while affirming the findings recorded by the trial court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by its impugned judgment dated 7/6/2003. Hence the present revision petition. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident took place in the year 1996 and, therefore, it will be too harsh to send the petitioner behind bars after 20 years of the incident. It is submitted that after the order was passed by the, appellate court, the petitioner remained in custody for over 19 days and his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 1/8/2003 and since then he is on bail. It was further 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 and if the Court deems it appropriate the fine imposed by the courts below may be enhanced suitably. 5. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. v. Mehtaab, 2015 (2) SCC (Cri.) 764, Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (3) R.IW. (Raj.) 2441, Kesar Deo @ Kesu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 (2) R.IW.(Raj.) 1244, and Bagga Singh v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 1030/2002 decided on 22/6/2016. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and having perused the records of both the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that so far as the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned, the same is well founded and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. So far as the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the trial court is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, after passage of over 20 years from the date of incident, when the petitioner was about 27 years of age, it will be too harsh to now send the petitioner behind bars. Over a period of 20 years, the petitioner might have settled in his life and the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted does not involve moral turpitude. Therefore, looking to the 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 is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- 8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed, while the conviction recorded by impugned judgments dated 24/3/2001 and 7/6/2003 passed by the trial court and the appellate court respectively are maintained, 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.1500/- to Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) with the trial court within a period of four months from today and the trial court shall disburse the same to the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased Pratap Singh S/o Veer Singh resident of 6 A.P.M., Anoopgarh. It is further directed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of fine as directed hereinbefore within the stipulated time, he shall undergo six month's simple imprisonment. 9. Record of both the courts below be sent back forthwith.