Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gumanaram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5800) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5800]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 932/2006
Gumana Ram S/o Bhika Ram Bheel, R/o Village Dhok, District
Barmer (lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh
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 29.09.2006 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge Jalore, in Criminal Appeal
No.32/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
27.11.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jalore, in Criminal Case No.490/1997 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.400/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' S.I. Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.400/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' S.I. Sec. 338 IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. Sec. 304A IPC 2 Years' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. (Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:5800] (2 of 5) [CRLR-932/2006] Sec. 134/187 of 1 month's S.I. Rs.200/- and in default of M.V. Act payment of fine, 7 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 24.05.1995
complainant Nazir Khan gave a written report to the concerned
Police Station to the effect that on the same day at about 8.30
a.m. he alongwith other persons were sitting at Bhavli Pyau and
waiting for bus for going to Jalore. At that time a tanker bearing
registration No.GJ-12-U-5426 came from Jalore driven by
petitioner rashly and negligently and hit the vehicle of Allrakh
Khan, due to which he succumbed from 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, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 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 fourteen witnesses were examined and thirteen 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 134/187 of
M.V. Act vide judgment dated 27.11.2004 and sentenced him as
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5800] (3 of 5) [CRLR-932/2006]
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 29.09.2006. Both these judgments
are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Naresh 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 1995. He had remained in jail for twenty one 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 1995 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
twenty one 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.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5800] (4 of 5) [CRLR-932/2006]
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 29 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 has suffered some time incarceration 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 and sentence dated
27.11.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jalore in Criminal Case No.490/1997 and the judgment dated
29.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in
Criminal Appeal No.32/2004 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
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5800] (5 of 5) [CRLR-932/2006]
adjusted. 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
29-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link