HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 778/2003

Ram Kishan S/o Nand Lal Soni R/o Housing Board, Purani Abadi, P.S. Suratgarh, Sriganganagar (At present lodged at District Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Anamika Baghmar
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP assisted by<br>Ms. Kamla Goswami

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

22/05/2024

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 13.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.19/2001 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.427/1997 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

Offence	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in<br>default of fine
Section 279 IPC	4 months' SI	Rs.200/-	7 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC	1 year's S.I.	Rs.500/-	20 days' S.I.

2. All 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 20.08.1997, complainant – Shiv Kumar submitted a report at Police Station to the extent that yesterday he along with his wife, nephew Shiv Lal and one Bhoma Ram was going to Maharwala in complainant's jeep. At about 10 AM when they reached at DBN stop, Shiv Lal got down from the jeep and was going towards the village. At that time, a roadways bus bearing registration No.RJ13-P-829 being driven by the present petitioner coming from Sriganganagar in very high speed hit Shiv Lal, due to which he fell down and got seriously injured thereafter complainant, jeep driver and Bhoma Ram took Shiv Lal to hospital and during treatment Shiv Lal died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner Ram Kishan. Upon the aforesaid information, 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 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 vide judgment dated 22.05.2001 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.08.2003. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Ms. Anamika Baghmar, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that she 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, she implores that the incident took place in the year 1997. He had remained in jail for about 1 month & 28 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 was 48 years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 75 years and is facing trial since the year 1997 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 1 month & 28 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 is facing the rigor for last 27 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 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 and sentence dated 13.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.19/2001 & the judgment dated 22.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.427/1997 is 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 waived. 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.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

9-Rashi/-