Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

Ladu Lal v. State

2025-02-13

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) Earlier on 28.08.2024 and 12.02.2025 no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today even in the second round also, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report from which it is found that the petitioner is still alive. Report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record. 3. Since on various occasion, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner is still alive, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma is hereby appointed as Amicus curiae in this case. He shall be paid his remuneration by the Legal Services Authority as per Legal Aid Scheme. 4. Heard on the revision petition. 5. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.40/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Criminal Regular Case No.85/2000 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 3 months’ SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month’s S.I. Sec. 304A IPC 6 months’ SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month’s S.I. 6. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 7. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 10.02.2000 complainant Sanjay Kumar Lodged a report at concerned Police Station to the effect that on 10.02.2000 at about 1.30 P.M. when he alongwith Laxman Jat and Laxman Acharya were coming from temple. When they reached at Circle of village Harni then a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-06-P-0834 driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and hit the petitioner. On this report, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner. After usual investigation, charge- sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 8. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. On this report, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner. After usual investigation, charge- sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 8. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined and certain 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 24.11.2005 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma, Amicus Curiae, 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 2000. He had remained in jail for more than one month 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 has been facing trial since the year 2000 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence. 10. 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 more than one month and except the present one no other case has been registered against him. 11. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he has been facing the rigor for last 25 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 some time incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of six 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. 13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.85/2000 and the judgment dated 05.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.40/2006 are 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. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 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. 14. The revision petition is allowed in part. 15. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 16. Record of the Courts below be sent back.