Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31299) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31299]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1259/2008
Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramanandji, by caste Maheshwari, R/o
14-A, Saheli Marg, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, Assistant to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 22.11.2008 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur, (for short, “the
appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.37/2008 while partly
allowing the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
02.05.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2
(South) Udaipur, in Regular Criminal Case No.746/2004 by which
the learned appellate Judge has convicted & sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days' S.I. Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days' S.I.
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:32:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31299] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1259/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 06.10.2002
complainant Girdhari Lal submitted a written report at concerned
Police Station, to the effect that on 06.10.2002 at about 6.30 p.m.
when he was standing opposite Shrinath Travels alongwith his
friend Ram Avtar. At that time, Ram Avtar’s wife met with an
accident with a scooter bearing registration No.RJ-27-3M-2897
driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and she succumbed to
injuries. On this report, the FIR was lodged at concerned Police
Station, against the petitioner. 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 Section
134/187 IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, as many as ten witnesses were
examined and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an
explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same. IN defence, certain
documents were exhibited and one witness was examined. 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 & 304-A of
IPC and Section 134/187 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated
02.05.2008 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge
No.3, Udaipur, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated
22.11.2008. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:32:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31299] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1259/2008]
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mudit Vaishnav, 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 partly allowed by the learned appellate
court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took
place in the year 2002. He had remained in jail for about five 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 2002 and he has languished in jail
for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing
his sentence.
6. Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General 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 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 courts
below, 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 23 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
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:32:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31299] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1259/2008]
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 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 dated 02.05.2008
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Regular
Criminal Case No.746/2004 and the judgment dated 22.11.2008
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur, in
Criminal Appeal No.37/2008 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned Appellate 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 waived, if not already deposited. 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
27-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:32:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)