[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohd.Akil vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22008) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22008]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 636/2007
Mohd. Akil S/o Mohd. Ibrahim Nagori Musalman, Aged About 45
years, R/o 679, Bhansle Colony, Devas (M.P.)
(Presently lodged at Sub-Jail, Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
07/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 27.06.2007 passed
by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.86/2007 whereby the learned
appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand, in Criminal Case
No.291/2006 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 5 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 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 11.05.2003,
complainant Balwant Singh submitted a report to the Police to the
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22008] (2 of 4) [CRLR-636/2007]
effect that he was travelling from Udaipur to Jaipur in his car,
which was driven by Raju Acharya and he was accompanied by
one Babu Bhai. In morning at about 06:30 A.M., their car was hit
by a truck bearing No.MP-09-KB-5192, which was being driven by
the accused-petitioner in a very rash and negligent manner. Due
to the accident, complainant’s car caught fire and two passengers
succumbed to the burnt injuries. 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. 337 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 06 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 convicted the accused for offence
under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated
30.11.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 27.06.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before
this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Ravindra 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
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22008] (3 of 4) [CRLR-636/2007]
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 2003. He had remained in jail for three months and twelve
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 three months and
twelve 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 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
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22008] (4 of 4) [CRLR-636/2007]
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 dated 27.06.2007
passed by learned Additonal District and Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.86/2007 & the judgment
dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.291/2006
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 maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the
fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
19-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link