Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 314 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. State

2025-02-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Judgment : 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 15.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.34/2003 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pipar Shahar in Criminal Case No.265/1996 whereby learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 279 IPC 1 month’s S.I. Rs.100/- 7 days’ S.I. Section 304A IPC 1 year’s R.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 month’s R.I. Section 337 IPC 1 month’s S.I. Rs.100/- 7 days’ S.I. 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 10.05.1996, complainant Amraram submitted a written report at Police Station Pipar Shahar to the extent that at about 12:30 PM he reached near Nanan Road and at that time, Bhagirath riding a moped along with Bhagaram were coming towards Pipar from Nanan. At the same time, a truck being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner coming from Nanan hit the moped due to which Bhagirath died on the spot and Bhagaram got injured. 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 & 304-A of IPC upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 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. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 17.11.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 15.07.2003. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 15.07.2003. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, 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 1996. He had remained in jail for about 3 days 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 is facing trial since the year 1996 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 3 days 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 courts below, 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 29 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. 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 29 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 Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 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 one year 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 15.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.34/2003 & the judgment dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Pipar Shahar in Criminal Case No.265/1996 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence reduced by the learned appellate 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. 10. The fine amount is maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the appellate Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s S.I. The petitioner is on bail.He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 11. The revision petition is allowed in part. 12. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 13. Record of the Courts below be sent back.