Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 731 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal S/o Chimanji v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-03

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 26.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Criminal Appeal No. 09/1998 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class – Sumerpur, District Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 443/1990 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under: Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 279 IPC 6 months’ SI Rs. 1,000/- 3 months’ SI Section 337 IPC 6 months’ SI Rs. 500/- 1 month’s SI Section 338 IPC 2 years’ SI Rs. 1,000/- 3 months’ SI Section 304A IPC 2 years’ SI Rs. 5,000/- 6 months’ SI 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 09.05.1990, complainant – Madanlal submitted a report to the extent that he along with some of his relatives, viz., Guneshmal, Jadawi Bai, Rambha, Nainu Shanker, Fajushanker, Khuma Shanker, Sumita, Jayantilal, Pista and his villagers, viz., Pratap Luhar, Hanwant Singh Rajput were going to village Dujana from Sumerpur in a jeep bearing registration No. RJW 1817. The jeep was being driven by the present petitioner and at about 11:15 AM, when the jeep reached near temple of Jakha Mataji, a bullock cart was proceeding in front of the jeep and when the driver tried to overtake the bullock cart, the jeep collided with a truck bearing registration No. DEG 5805 which was coming from the opposite direction and fell into a fencing. Due to which Hanwant Singh, Rambha and Jadawi Bai died on the spot and Guneshmal & Nainu Shanker died during treatment. Other passengers sitting in the jeep also sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration No. RJW 1817, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner Ratanlal. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 338, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 11.08.1998 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.08.2002. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Amitabh Acharya, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1990. He had remained in jail for two months after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 27 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 61 years and is facing trial since the year 1990 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence. 6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about two months and except the present one no other case has been registered against him. 7. 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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. 7. 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, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 36 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of three months as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.08.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class - Sumerpur, Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 443/1990 and the judgment dated 26.08.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bali in Criminal Appeal No. 09/1998 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court 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 fine amount is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 10. The revision petition is allowed in part. 11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.