Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 743 (RAJ)

Jai Narayan v. State

2025-03-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, (for short, “the appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.26/2003 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 2 months’ SI ---- Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Year’s SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, seven days’ S.I. 2. Both 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 complainant Manoj gave a written report to the concerned Police Station to the effect that on 31.12.2002 he went to Resort for party alongwith Ajay and Manish in his Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-19-T-1938. When they reached near Village Khuhari, a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-15-P-220 drove by the petitioner rashly and negligently hit his jeep. As a result of this accident, passengers were injured and out of which Ajay was succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.01/2003 was lodged at concerned Police Station, against the petitioner. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as eight 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 exhibited certain documents. 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 06.04.2004 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.08.2006. 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 District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. L.D. Khatri, 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 2002. He had remained in jail for about fifteen 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 2003 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 fifteen 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 and he has been facing the rigor for last 22 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 has been facing the rigor for last 22 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 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 06.04.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.26/2003 and the judgment dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 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. 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.