Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 199 (RAJ)

Bhanwara Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-22

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2020
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. By this revision, the petitioner-convict Bhanwara Ram is challenging the judgment and order dated 13.10.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jodhpur whereby, the conviction of the petitioner-convict under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC awarded by the learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipar city vide judgment dated 30.04.1998 has been upheld, however, sentenced has been reduced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC One month's S.I and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days S.I. Under Section 337 IPC One month's S.I and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo ten days' S.I. Under Section 304-A IPC Four month's S.I and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month S.I. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 24.01.1990, the complainant alongwith his brother-in-law Madan Singh who was working in Water Works Department and Sunil Harsh were going towards Jodhpur as the car was demanded by the Ex. En. In the evening at about 6 PM one Truck No. RNS 4841 came from Jodhpur side which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently and it hit the car due to which Madan Singh and Sunil Harsh expired and Ladu Ram sustained simple injuries. 3. On the basis of the above report, FIR was registered by the police and the police started investigation. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and got exhibited so many documents. After examining the accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence for which he denied. 5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the petitioner/accused was found guilty for offences under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC Three month's R.I and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S.I. Under Section 337 IPC Three month's S.I and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S.I. Under Section 337 IPC Three month's S.I and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days' S.I. Under Section 304-A IPC Six month's R.I and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month S.I. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.4.1998, passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur whereby, the conviction of the petitioner-convict under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC awarded by the learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipar city vide judgment dated 30.04.1998 has been upheld, however, sentenced has been reduced as mentioned earlier. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction as the counsels fairly admitted that there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, since the occurrence relates back to year 1990 and now the petitioner is 52 years of age and the petitioner has already served the sentence of about four days out of maximum sentence of four months simple imprisonment awarded to him, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned courts below have rightly awarded sentence against the petitioner, which need not be interfered with by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders of sentence. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions so also perused the record. 10. In this case, the fact of accident has also been corroborated by the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Both the courts below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the finding of conviction passed by the courts below. 11. In this case, the fact of accident has also been corroborated by the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Both the courts below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the finding of conviction passed by the courts below. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter where the accused person was convicted for committing offence punishable under Secs. 279 and 304A IPC, reduced the sentence to that already undergone and enhanced the fine from P.s. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7 years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor. 12. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 CriLJ 2582 wherein the accused petitioner had undergone a protracted trial for more than 29 years and looking to the over-all circumstances specially the fact that the petitioner had suffered persistent agony from last more than 29 years and he has remained in jail about 18 days, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 13. In the present case also, the incident relates to the year 1990 and petitioner has so far undergone a period of four days in custody out of total four months imprisonment so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for last 30 years. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the amount of fine appropriately. 14. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner's sentence for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine is enhanced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC Rs. 500/- Under Section 337 IPC Rs. 500/- Under Section 304-A IPC Rs. 10,000/- 15. The aforesaid amount of fine in total Rs. However, the amount of fine is enhanced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC Rs. 500/- Under Section 337 IPC Rs. 500/- Under Section 304-A IPC Rs. 10,000/- 15. The aforesaid amount of fine in total Rs. 11,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial court within two months from the date of this order, and on such deposit, a sum of Rs. 4500/- shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Madan Singh, Rs. 4500/- shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Sunil Harsh and Rs. 2000/- shall be disbursed to the injured complainant Ladu Ram. In default of such deposit within the stipulated period, this revision petition shall stand dismissed and the petitioner shall be sent to jail to serve remaining sentence. 16. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.