Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2462 (RAJ)

Gaje Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-13

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J - The petitioner has filed the present revision claiming the following relief :- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaur, in Criminal Appeal No. 278/1 (49/08) (76/14) and judgment dated 08/09/2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, whereby petitioner-accused were convicted for the offences U/Ss. 279, 337, 304-A of IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused may kindly be acquitted accordingly." 2. Brief facts of the case are that a report was filed at P.S. Sri Balaji on 15.6.2003 stating inter alia that on 14.6.2003 a tractor carrying water tanker owned by Karan Singh was going from Rohini to Unthwalia and it was driven by the present petitioner Gaje Singh. The petitioner stopped the tractor and allowed the complainant's brother Sohan Lal, Hajari Ram, Haru Ram, Nimba Ram, Surja Ram etc. to sit on the tractor. It is alleged that the tractor driver - petitioner was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and thereby resulted in separation of water tanker from tractor, as a result whereof Hajari Ram and Sohan Lal expired. FIR No.59/2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner who denied the same and claimed trial. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2008 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as below :- Section 279 IPC 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 1 months S.I. Section 337 IPC 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 1 months S.I. Section 338 IPC 1 years S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. Section 304A IPC 2 years S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. 3. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.8.2019 acquitting the petitioner from the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC on account of the parties having entered into a compromise. However, the appeal against conviction and sentence imposed under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 jointly submit that since the issue in dispute was only a pure accident, therefore, the parties have entered into a compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below but looking to the nature of allegation and that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of about 20 days and does not have any criminal antecedents, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 1 CrLR 388 ,(Raj.) which reads as under :- "This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2001, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 388/1997, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 304 A IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 1/2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by the complainant namely Ram Gopal at Police Station, Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur on 11.9.1997 to the effect that nephew Ved Prakash was coming on a byecycle from Station Bajariya to Aalanpura. At about 3.00 PM, the bus No. RJ 25 -P 0110, which was allegedly being driven by the accused petitioner rashly and negligently, hit Ved Prakash and as a result of injuries, he succumbed to on the spot. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 347/1997 was registered by the police for the offence under Section 304 A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused petitioner. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 347/1997 was registered by the police for the offence under Section 304 A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused petitioner. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused petitioner, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses before the court below. The statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 15.5.2001 convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 304 A IPC. Against the said judgment dated 15.5.2001, the petitioner filed the appeal. The appellate court, vide judgment dated 24.9.2001 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the nature of allegation and that the matter pertains to the year 1997 which is 16 years ago from today approximately, the accused petitioner is old persons, it is the first offence of his life; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon him; he is not the habitual offender, he has remained in confinement for about 10 days; hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 360 CrPC / Probation of Offenders Act and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 4. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioner on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The conviction of the petitioner, as awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, 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 (Downloaded on 13/09/2019 at 04:37:50 PM) suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove." 6. Learned P.P. has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances where the parties have themselves entered into compromise and keeping in mind the antecedents as well as the fact that the petitioner had already undergone 20 days sentence, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. 8. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions :- (i) The conviction of the petitioner, as awarded by the trial Court and partly affirmed by the appellate Court, is maintained. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The accused petitioner is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Application for suspension of sentence (Revision) No.312/2019 stands disposed of accordingly.