Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhera Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5790) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5790]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1075/2006
Bhera Ram S/o Bhoma Ram, By caste Ja, R/o Village Shoda, P.S.
Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 21.11.2006 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotra, Barmer
in Criminal Appeal No.45/2005 (Old No.39/02) whereby the
learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 passed by the learned
Addl. Judicial Magistrate Barmer, in Criminal Case No.407/1997 by
which the learned trial 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, 15 days' S.I. Sec. 304A IPC 1 Year's & 3 Rs.1,000/- and in default of months' SI payment of fine, 15 days' S.I. Sec. 184 of M.V. 3 Months' S.I. ----- Act Sec. 132/187 of 1 month's S.I. ---- M.V. Act Sec. 134/187 of 1 month's S.I. ---- M.V. Act (Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:5790] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1075/2006]
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 19.08.1997
complainant Chhoga Ram submitted a written report at concerned
Police Station to the effect that his father Pitha Ram was going to
field from Dhani. When he was crossing the road, at that time a
Roadways bus bearing registration No.RJ-04-P-0196 driven by
petitioner rashly and negligently and hit his father, due to which
his father fell down and succumbed to 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 charges against the
petitioner for offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 184, 132/187 and 134/187 of M.V. Act and upon denial of
guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of
trial, as many as eight witnesses were examined and ten
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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections 184,
132/187 and 134/187 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 26.11.2002
and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5790] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1075/2006]
Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
21.11.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Choudhary, 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. He had
remained in jail for 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 1997 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 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 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 28 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5790] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1075/2006]
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 some time incarceration and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of one year and three months 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
26.11.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate
Barmer in Criminal Case No.407/1997 and the judgment dated
21.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) Balotra, Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No.45/2005 (Old
No.39/02) 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, if any,
already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner
is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5790] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1075/2006]
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
31-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)