Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohd Salim vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:19713) on 1 May, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:19713]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 97/2003
Mohd. Salim S/o Fidda Hussain, R/o Sanwaria Ji, P.S. Bhadsoda,
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 01/05/2024 This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.01.2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Cr. Appeal No.29/2001 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera in Cr. Original Case No.474/1998 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 06.07.2001 as below:
Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections:
279 IPC One months' S.I and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' S.I. 304-A IPC 6 months' S.I and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' S.I. 134/187 M.V. Act A fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days' S.I. (Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:33:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19713] (2 of 4) [CRLR-97/2003] All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
As per the prosecution, the facts of the case are that on 30.09.1998, at around 09:15 A.M., the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.RSH-1479 hit the deceased - Bablu aged 1½ years, near Sindhi Dharamshala. The deceased died on the spot and the petitioner fled from the place of the incident.
Thereafter, an FIR 509/98 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nimbaheda for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A IPC and the investigation was commenced. A charge sheet was presented against the accused- petitioner before the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and the trial was commenced. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 06.07.2001 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 22.01.2003.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submitted that the sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 07.02.2003 in SB Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.19/2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present petitioner (Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:33:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19713] (3 of 4) [CRLR-97/2003] may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:33:33 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:19713] (4 of 4) [CRLR-97/2003] Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the IPC and Section 134/187 of the MV Act, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 5-mohit/-(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:33:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)