Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hanuman vs State on 8 January, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 646/2006
Hanuman S/o Shri Ramnarayan, age 35 year, residence of
Village Shivad, Police Station Choth-ka-Barwada, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur. At present employee Railway Station Isarada,
Western Railway, India.
(Accused Petitioner is in District Jail Tonk.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shazadi Bano on behalf of
Mr. Mohd.Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
08/01/2025
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by
the accused-petitioner-Hanuman against Judgment and Order
dated 23.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No.4, Tonk (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as “appellate
court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2006 (Hanuman vs. State of
Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-
petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated
16.09.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk
(hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) convicting and sentencing
him for the offences under sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C and
Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act was dismissed.
The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLR-646/2006]
offence sentence fine sentence in
default
u/s 279 IPC 3 Months S.I Rs.100/- 1 days S.I.
u/s 304-A IPC 1 years S.I Rs. 500/- 5 days S.I
u/s 3/181 Rs.100/- 3 days S.I.
U/s 146/196 - Rs.100/- 3 days S.I.
(All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of a written
report (Ex.P/1) submitted by complainant- Gopal (PW-1) with
respect to an incident, which occurred on 04.05.2000, F.I.R. No.
68/2000 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Tonk for the
offences under Sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C. During course of
investigation, Police added sections 337 & 338 IPC and Sections
3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act. After conclusion of
investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A
I.P.C and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The
trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 279 &
304 A and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act and
trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court
passed judgment and order of sentence dated 16.09.2005
whereby accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the
offences under Sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C and 3/181 & 146/196
of the Motor Vehicle Act, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2005, accused-petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
passed the Judgment & Order dated 23.06.2006 dismissing the
appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLR-646/2006]
criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-
petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned
counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant
revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts
below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the
point of sentence only.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted
that incident in the present case took place way back in the year
2000 i.e. more than 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 35
years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 60 years
old and facing agony of trial since last more than 25 years;
accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs
to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of
almost twenty days and there is no previous conviction recorded
against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of
justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and
sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs.
State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024)
decided on 04.10.2024 and the judgments rendered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Shyamveer Singh
vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
724/2003) decided on 15.05.2024, Smt. Sudesh Kumari vs.
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLR-646/2006]
State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
1047/2005) decided on 09.10.2024, Mahesh Bhargava vs.
State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
737/2005) decided on 06.11.2024, Pappu vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005)
decided on 21.08.2024, Annu @ Anwar vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 333/2018)
decided on 04.11.2024, Banna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 391 of 2006) decided
on 08.07.2024, Heera Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 733/2003) decided on
14.02.2024 & Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on
08.07.2024.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the
revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders
passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court
cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in
sentence is warranted in this case.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and
have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below
and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case.
9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused-
petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record,
nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of
guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLR-646/2006]
interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction
of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by
the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are
maintained.
10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of
record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 35 years
at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of
protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and
he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the
judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the
accused-petitioner is produced on record.
11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and
all other attendant circumstances.”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“…considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had
suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and
also considering the fact that he had been released on
bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends
of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLR-646/2006]
12. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering
the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at
this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the
petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be
served by sending him to jail now.
13. Consequently, the judgments dated 23.06.2006 and
16.09.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the
accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A
I.P.C and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act are affirmed
but the quantum of sentence for the offences under sections 279
& 304-A I.P.C and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act,
awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed
by the appellate court is modified and is reduced to the period
already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and
justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on
bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
14. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
modification in the order of sentence.
15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial
court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
Anu/16/
(Downloaded on 15/01/2025 at 09:50:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)