Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1512 (RAJ)

Abdul Gani v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-08

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgement dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.15/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawali, District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.65/1994; whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence for which convicted Sentence, fine and default sentence Section 304-A of the IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Section 338 of the IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen days Section 337 of the IPC Three months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 24.02.1994, complainant Chhagan Lal submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Dabok to the effect that he and Ramchandra, L.C., reached Bhutpura at 10.30 a.m. for patrolling and compliance and were standing there. At that time, they saw a Jeep bearing registration No.RSL 9972 coming from towards Udaipur, which was being driven rashly and negligently and while overtaking, it hit a motorcycle, due to which the person sitting behind fell down and died due to head injury, while the person driving the motorcycle suffered injuries on right hand and leg and fracture. The deceased was Mansoor Khan and the injured was Rameshwar Lal. The Jeep driver told his name to be Abdul Gani resident of Aayad. Jeep owner left the spot. The injured was sent to hospital and the dead body was kept in mortuary. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.30/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.30/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and submitted that the accident was not caused due to his mistake. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the IPC vide judgement dated 03.11.2000. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 11.06.2002 affirming the judgement passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1994, in which a motorcycle was hit by the jeep driven by the petitioner. The petitioner was around 22 years of age at that time and at present he is 51 years old. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgement. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 29 years. The petitioner remained in custody for some time during trial and some time after judgement in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 29 years. The petitioner remained in custody for some time during trial and some time after judgement in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time during trial and some time after passing of the judgement in appeal. 6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgement of conviction. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction is maintained. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case is of the year 1994 and pertains to a road accident. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 29 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He was 22 years at the time of the incident. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and some time after passing of the judgement in appeal. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and some time after passing of the judgement in appeal. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction dated 03.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawali, District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.65/1994 as well as the judgement in appeal dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.15/2001 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.