Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 489 (RAJ)

Balu Ram S/o Baldev v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-20

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : 1. Earlier on 08.01.2025, 22.01.2025, 05.02.2025 and 19.02.2025 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 numerous occasions, 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. Kuldeep 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 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.41/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.100/2001 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 1 month’s SI ------- Sec. 337 IPC 1 month’s SI ------- Sec. 338 IPC 4 months’ SI ------- Sec. 304A IPC 6 months’ SI Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months’ S.I. Sec. 146/196 M.V. Act ---- Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days’ S.I. 6. All 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 02.03.2001 complainant Fakruddin Lodged a report at Police Station Gulabpura, to the effect that on 02.03.2001 at about 8.30 P.M. an accident was caused by a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-01-R- 3704, which was driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and in the said accident one person was injured and another succumbed to injuries. 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. 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 192 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as eighteen 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. In defence, three witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 146/196 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 15.09.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.03.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep 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 2001. He had remained in jail for about twenty three 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 has been facing trial since the year 2001 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 about twenty three days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him. 11. 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 about twenty three days 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. 12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 13. 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 24 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, (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 some time incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of six months as well as the fact that he had 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. 14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.100/2001 and the judgment dated 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.41/2004 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 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. 15. 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. 15. The revision petition is allowed in part. 16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 17. Record of the Courts below be sent back.