Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Roshan Lal S/o Nand Lal Sen v. State of Rajasthan

2024-11-06

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railmagra, District Rajsamand whereby he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in criminal appeal no. 49/2006 whereby the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set up is that on 15.06.1996 at around 10:00 P.M., the petitioner who was driving the truck bearing registration No. RJE-9273 near village Phiyawadi collided with a jeep bearing registration No. RJH-4183 carrying numerous passengers. In the aforesaid incident, one passenger died and so many received grievous injuries. All the injured passengers were taken to the nearby hospital. Subsequently, the S.H.O. of Police Station Kunwariya lodged an FIR No.117/96 and commenced investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigating agency during the course of investigation, has found that at the time of incident, the offending vehicle- truck and the jeep bearing registration registration No. RJH-4183 were both driven rashly and negligently by their respective drivers. There is no positive evidence available on record of the case to the effect that the petitioner alone was responsible for the alleged incident. 4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1996 and the petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded to him, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 Cri. L.J. 2582. 5. Per Contra learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders passed by the trial/appellate courts and therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. L.J. 2582. 5. Per Contra learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders passed by the trial/appellate courts and therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the case. 7. This Court finds that the allegation against the present petitioner is that due to his rash and negligent driving, the offending vehicle collided with a jeep and consequently one passenger died and numerous got severely injured. However, in the opinion of this Court, since the incident relates to the year 1996 and the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 27 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner while directing him to deposit the fine amount if not already deposited. 8. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction, the petitioner’s sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount within a period of 3 months from the date of this order (if not already deposited). In default of such deposit within the stipulated period, the revision petition shall stand automatically dismissed and the petitioner shall be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence. 9. The record of the trial court as well as appellate court be sent back forthwith.