Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 358 (RAJ)

Satveer v. State

2025-02-14

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
JUDGMENT : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2004 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 04.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.465/1999 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 6 months’ SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 months’ SI Sec. 304-A IPC 2 years’ RI Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 4 months’ SI Sec. 337 IPC 6 months’ SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 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. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.09.1999, Shri Paramjeet Singh gave Parcha Bayan that he along with his family was travelling to Gogamedi from Hissar in a rented Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-31-1420. Upon reaching Dabdi T-junction, another Jeep bearing registration No.HR-21-5752, while reversing suddenly entered the roadway. As a result of which, the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-31- 1420 collided with the reversing vehicle from behind, lost control and met with an accident. Passengers in the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-31-1420 sustained some injuries and Paramjeet Singh’s Uncle Ammilal and Daughter Rajni died during treatment. On the basis of Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case under Sections 279 , 304-A and 337 of IPC and commenced the investigation. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against. 4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh after hearing the final arguments of both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 , 304-A and 337 of IPC vide order dated 04.10.2004. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 13.09.2007. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 13.09.2007. 5. Learned counsel Mr. N.R. Goswami, 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 1999. The accused-petitioner had remained in judicial custody for about 17 days. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner was aged about 20 years in 1999 at the time of incident and the accused- petitioner is aged about 46 years at present and has been facing trial since the year 1999 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 17 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 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. 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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 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 dated 04.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.465/1999 and the judgment dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2004 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 imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not 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.