Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 801 (RAJ)

Surja Ram v. State

2025-03-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Judgment : 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 22.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007 (12/1999) whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sujangarh, in Criminal Case No.232/1990 and while setting aside the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 3/181 of MV Act, affirmed his conviction for offence under Sections 279, 304A IPC. Details of the sentence is as under :- Offence Sentence Sec. 279 IPC 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI Sec. 304A IPC 2 years SI and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI 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 on 10.05.1990, complainant Tolaram gave an oral information to SHO, PS Sandwa to the effect that a private bus bearing No.RJP 1355 coming from Nokha side in a rash and negligent manner, hit his nephew Dharmaram. As a result of which, Dharmaram died. Upon the aforesaid report, 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, 304A IPC & 3/181 of MV Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 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 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, 304A of IPC & 3/181 of MV Act vide judgment dated 19.07.1999 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 22.08.2007. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 22.08.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 modified by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1990. He had remained in jail for about five months 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 was 46 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 81 years and has been facing trial since the year 1990 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 five months 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 35 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. 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 35 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 two years 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 19.07.1999 passed by the learned J Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sujangarh in Criminal Case No.232/1990 and the judgment dated 22.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007 (12/1999) are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the courts below for offence under Sections 279, 304A IPC 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 amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. If the petitioner fails deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo the default sentence. 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.