Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jaheer Mohd vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:29777) on 9 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:29777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 634/2008
Jaheer Mohd. S/o Shakur Mohd. R/o Delwada Lokiya, P.S.
Lohariya, District Banswara. ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta
Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 11.06.2008 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Criminal
Appeal No.82/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
22.02.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Ghatol, District Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.458/2003
by which the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 337 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in police & judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29777] (2 of 4) [CRLR-634/2008]
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.1995
complainant Bhaan Ji Gayari submitted a report to SHO Khamera
to the extent that one Mahipal informed him that a mini bus met
with an accident at Himmat Singh-Ka-Gada. It was found that the
accident happened due to negligence of the mini bus driver and
due to such accident one Bher Ji Gayari died on the spot and some
other persons got injured. Upon the aforesaid report of the
complainant, 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
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and
various 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, one witness was examined
and various documents were exhibited. 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, 338 & 304-A of IPC
vide judgment dated 22.02.2006 and sentenced him as mentioned
above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an
appeal before the learned appellate Judge which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 11.06.2008. Both these judgments are under
assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset
submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29777] (3 of 4) [CRLR-634/2008]
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and
dismissed 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 about 28 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 is 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 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 about 28 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 30 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 10/07/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29777] (4 of 4) [CRLR-634/2008]
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 11.06.2008
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in
Criminal Appeal No.82/2006 & the judgment dated 22.02.2006
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatol,
District Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.458/2003 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. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court,
if not already deposited by the petitioner, then 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
24-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link