Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chatra vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:48674) on 28 November, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:48674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 466/2006
Chatra S/o Sh. Bhagwan Ji, aged 65 yrs., by caste Koli, R/o
Village - Kayaria, Tehsil - Reodar, Distt. - Sirohi [Raj.]
[At present lodged in District Jail, Sirohi]
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paramveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 28/11/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.59/2005 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reodar, District Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.80/1997 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 304-A IPC 2 year SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month SI Sec. 279 IPC 6 month SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days SI Sec. 337 IPC 6 month SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days SI Sec. 338 IPC 1 year SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days SI Sec. 134 / 187 - Rs.200/- and in default of payment of M.V. Act fine, 7 days SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. (Downloaded on 30/11/2024 at 12:13:10 AM)
[2024:RJ-JD:48674] (2 of 4) [CRLR-466/2006]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 21.02.1997, a written complaint was submitted by Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Padma Ji alleging therein that he along with his relatives and villagers hired a tractor of accused-petitioner Chatra for visiting Karodi Dawaj to perform last rites of his grand mother. While approaching a turn, due to fast speed of the tractor, the driver accused-petitioner lost control and the tractor along with the trolly turned upside down due to which, persons sitting in the trolly got injured and Bharat @ Bhasia died on the spot and the accused-petitioner took flight from the place of incident. A case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and under Sections 137/187 of Motor Vehicle Act, to which the accused-petitioner denied and demanded a trial. During the course of trial, 21 witnesses were examined and certain documents were examined. Thereafter, an explaination was sought from the accused- petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the allegations against him.
4. The Learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and under Sections 137/187 of Motor Vehicle Act and awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment and fine vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, where the appellate court partly allowed the appeal, however, conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and under Sections 137/187 of Motor Vehicle Act were upheld and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC were reduced. (Downloaded on 30/11/2024 at 12:13:10 AM)
[2024:RJ-JD:48674] (3 of 4) [CRLR-466/2006]
5. Learned counsel Mr. Paramveer Singh, 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 1997. The accused-petitioner had remained in jail for 20 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. The accused-petitioner was aged about 57 years in 1997 at the time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about 84 years at present 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 20 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. 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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2024 at 12:13:10 AM) [2024:RJ-JD:48674] (4 of 4) [CRLR-466/2006] 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 and sentence dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reodar, District Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.80/1997 and the judgment dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.59/2005 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 has already deposited by the petitioner. 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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 226-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 30/11/2024 at 12:13:10 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)